Thanks, John. Committed at r5595.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Reviewers: scottb, Lex,
Message:
Request review.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/44803/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/js/JsInliner.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/44803/diff/1/2#newcode916
Line 916: }
Actual changes are above. From here to the next comment
Reviewers: scottb,
Message:
Requesting review.
@Scott, if you're still tied up from last week, let me know and I'll
kick this over to Lex, but I think that you might remember some of the
design details from the in-person chat we had about it.
Description:
The ArtificialRescue annotation is used
Reviewers: scottb,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
Adds an Impl.getNameOf() method which ReplaceRebinds will replace with a
JNameOf node.
The JNameOf node is currently used internally to provide class literals
with meaningful names when class metadata has been compiled out of the
module
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/44804
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Please extract the expando work to the gwt.core.client package and add
test cases for it, as it's a generally-useful facility to offer.
Needs tests of the JDO testcases.
@Cromwellian,
The expando field just reserves a bit of the Object-field namespace
since it's lazily initialized.
http://g
Ping
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46802
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Ping
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47807/diff/1/9
File user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/rpc/WeakMapping.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47807/diff/1/9#newcode31
Line 31: public static Object get(Object instance, String key) {
On 2009/06/29 15:34:02, Dan Rice wrote:
> I'm no
Thanks for the review; the JSNI lookup logic had already been extracted
into JsniRefLookup by Lex some number of weeks ago.
Committed at r5640.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46802
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contr
I think the following scenario should be made to work.
my.css:
@def shadow #abc
.shadow { color: shadow; }
my.java
MyCss implements CssResource {
String shadow();
@ClassName("shadow")
String shadowClass();
}
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/50804/diff/1/5
File user/src/com/goo
On 2009/06/29 13:40:16, bobv wrote:
> Ping
Ping.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Reviewers: jat,
Message:
Requesting review.
Description:
Splits UnicodeEscapingTest.testClientToServerBMP() into two methods so
that failures are correctly reported. The current implementation will
call finishTest() twice, which will desynchronize the junit framework,
making failures harder to p
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/48806
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Updated.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801/diff/1041/24
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/javac/ArtificialRescueChecker.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801/diff/1041/24#newcode282
Line 282: return "Cannot refer to fields on " + "array or primitive
types";
On 2009/
Ignore patch set 5; the change to JProgram.traverse() is necessary.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801/diff/5008/4010
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/ast/JProgram.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801/diff/5008/4010#newcode1087
Line 1087: visitor.accept(new Arr
Thanks for taking a look. I've updated my client.
I think the dev/ comments have been subsumed by the latest version of
the patch at:
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/46801/show
> bad indent in DynaTable.gwt.xml
Fixed.
> CustomFieldSerializerValidator looks like checkstyle fixing; separa
> I won't kick and scream about Pair, but it does suggest this is a general
> class that may be a larger issue for a more interesting example.
I agree; I'll be in Atlanta tomorrow through Friday. Let's have a
chat with Scott about maybe rearranging the various collection types
used in the compi
LGTM; Sorry for the delay.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47806/diff/1/3
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/CodeSplitter.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47806/diff/1/3#newcode413
Line 413: private static void installInitialLoadSequenceField(JProgram
program,
Ad
Reviewers: scottb,
Message:
Request review.
Description:
This patch ensures that a after an will
correctly replace the previously-defined implementation.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47813
Affected files:
M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/cfg/ModuleDef.java
I've changed ModuleDef to track the string names internally. This makes
all of the added code in defineLinker() sanity-checking code.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47813/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/cfg/ModuleDef.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47813/di
Reviewers: scottb, Lex,
Message:
Review requested.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47816/diff/1/4
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/impl/GenerateJavaScriptAST.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47816/diff/1/4#newcode2125
Line 2125: jsProgram.setIndexedFunctions(indexe
Ping.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47816
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Reviewers: Lex, scottb,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
JTypeOracle.computeSingleJsoImplData() was using an incorrect test to
determine if an interface is a tag interface. It was looking at the
number of methods declared on the interface type without looking at the
interface's supertype
Thanks.
The extra test types were incorporated into singlejso.TypeHierarchyTest.
Committed at r5756.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51805
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--
Reviewers: amitmanjhi,
Message:
Request review.
Description:
This patch fixes three small issues:
1) Canonicalization of inner array type names
2) Ensuring that primitive return types for service methods cause
their boxed counterparts to be rescued since return types are boxed over
the wir
Committed at r5762.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/54801
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Implementation changes LGTM. The internals of the compiler really need
more documentation so other developers have a chance in hell of getting
the zen of the current implementation when implementing new features.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/54802/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gw
I don't think getting this thing wrapped up will take too much more
work.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47816/diff/1/5
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/js/JsStackEmulator.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/47816/diff/1/5#newcode132
Line 132: // $stack[$stackDepth = stac
Ready for another look. Major changes:
- No special handling for throw statements.
- Force all try/finally to be try/catch/finally to ensure that a
caught JavaScriptException would have the correct stack data as well as
code running in the finally block.
- Locations always record when ex
LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/54803
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Should running a web-mode test case always turn on the emulated stack
trace code?
You would get stack traces entries like:
Unknown.bx(YourClass.java:1234) regardless of which browser you're on
and the type of exception, Java-derived or native. The cost is code
bloat: 64k versus 108k for the Core
> Would "always on" mean that it generates code even for browsers that have
> native stack traces (i.e. FF)?
Yes, for the purpose of giving you consistency between browsers.
> Generally, as much as I hate to say it, it seems we'd want variations of the
> tests both with and without stack trace c
> Technically, wouldn't it just mean we should not pin down the value of the
> deferred binding property that controls it? It would double the number of
> permutations, tho.
But wouldn't we actually want to run the instrumented code, to make
sure that the instrumentation itself doesn't break some
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Yes, I think we would want to. My point is that we also would want to run
> the non-instrumented code. I have to think there could be subtle downstream
> behavioral differences (e.g. compiler optimizations that do/don't happen)
> based on whe
@Bruce,
Per our phone conversation, JUnit will turn on the emulated stack
trace code for browsers that do not provide stack data for native
exceptions.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolki
Here's a null-pointer deref in Safari. The location data here is
accurate, you can call up RequestBuilder.java and see on line 396 that
it's firing onResponseReceived.
The offending Java code is: ((String) null).charAt(55);
The exception reported through the JUnit console is
com.google.gwt.c
Committed at r5779.
If anyone is interested in testing this out, you can take a look at or
just inherit com.google.gwt.core.EmulateJsStack. Right now, this is
kind of a blunt instrument, but the control mechanism will be refined
with the addition of module property predicates.
--
Bob Vawter
Go
One thing this setup won't do is to minify the JS.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51814
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Reviewers: scottb,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
Rhino's Node.getLineno() only returns useful data for JS statements.
This patch changes GWT's JsParser to provide statement-level line number
resolution for JsExpressions.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51816
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51816/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/js/JsParser.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51816/diff/1/2#newcode159
Line 159: SourceInfo toReturn = program.createSourceInfo(lineno,
parent.getFileName());
Will change.
http://gwt-code-re
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51817
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
> Is the concept of versioning something that belongs in the core GWT
> RPC code, or is this something better suited for an external library?
I have a design wave going on about how to add this to the new RPC
implementation. Here's a cruddy copy-and-paste of the current state
of the document.
> Also, will this be supported on methods themselves? For instance, can
> I mark a new method parameter as @Optional so that older clients don't
> need to provide it? Conversely, could we remove a parameter from a
> method and still support clients sending data with the old signature?
I could g
The deRPC code went into trunk a week or so ago, and no initial fires
have been reported. I'd like to get folks on GWTC to give it a
shakedown.
Quickstart (for vanilla configurations):
- Inherit com.google.gwt.rpc.Rpc in your gwt.xml file
- Change your remote service interfaces to extend
com
Reviewers: Lex, scottb,
Message:
Review requested.
@Lex, the implementation follows our IM discussion pretty much as
discussed.
Description:
This patch changes the way code-splitting and string interning is
performed on the JS AST to allow new strings to be introduced by
JsVisitors (such as Js
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Ray Cromwell wrote:
> Woohoo! I assume this patch general purpose and would allow any of the Js
> optimization passes to introduce new string literals?
That's my expectation.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
FYI: A complete re-merge of this, plus the stack trace code and IE event
handler fixup is at
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/54807
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51820
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-
Reviewers: Ray Ryan, jgw,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
This patch changes the way ImageBundleBuilder loads images to be able to
detect image files that contain multiple sub-images. Animated image
files do not undergo any transformation, but are emitted as-is via the
ResourceContext (
> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51820/diff/1/8#newcode79
> Line 79: * fragments need only be downloaded once.
> I thought the LoadOrderOracle was a fine idea, so as to no longer
require
> passing in the JProgram. I guess it ran into some issue.
No issue; I just wanted to get all of the fun
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:03 AM, futzi wrote:
> my first test showed, that
Thanks for the data.
Just to clarify, these payloads were only going from the server to the client?
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/g
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Rice (דניאל רייס) wrote:
> That could still theoretically fail if removeEldestEntry did something
> weird that mutated the entries. But that seems pretty unlikely to be the
> case.
Which is basically the tension between application code (just make it
work
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51830/diff/1/3
File layout/client/LayoutImpl.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51830/diff/1/3#newcode116
Line 116: return fixedRuler.getOffsetWidth() / 2.36;
Aren't these numbers subject to change based on display resolution?
http://gwt-code-r
> Anyways, it'd be great if this "feature" could be turned off (or just
> removed entirely). If the contributors group is the wrong place for
> this topic, don't hesitate to point me somewhere else.
You can pass -XdisableUpdateCheck to the tools to disable the update
check, which is only perform
LGTM, just one comment on the integration test.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51829/diff/1/3
File
user/test/com/google/gwt/dev/jjs/test/RunAsyncMetricsIntegrationTest.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51829/diff/1/3#newcode199
Line 199: }
Check that the event queue is empt
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Message:
@Ray, does this take care of the issue you mentioned in IRC?
Description:
This patch does away with the need to write a callback just to be able
to discard the proxy object once the implementation has been loaded.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appsp
Reviewers: scottb,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
This is a convenience method for the permutation reduction work.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/56806
Affected files:
M dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/dev/util/collect/Sets.java
Index: dev/core/src/com/goog
Reviewers: bruce, scottb, Lex,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
This patch allows and to be subjected
to conditions based on deferred-binding property values. The net effect
allows the developer to use a richer number of deferred-binding
properties without necessarily causing an explos
There's a related issue for ClassObjectTest. It is sensitive to
whether or not the compiler is in -XdisableClassMetadata mode.
I've wanted to add some kind of build information to the
GeneratorContext that would allow Generators to get the command-line
flags so generators can be sensitive to pre
This thread seems related to the one that Lex just started, that you
have user code which depends upon how the module was built.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~-
Reviewed the common, ie, and webkit code. LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51834/diff/1/11
File plugins/common/ChooseTransportMessage.cpp (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/51834/diff/1/11#newcode31
Line 31: * Receive an FatalError message from the channel (note that the
messa
Reviewers: bruce,
Message:
@Bruce, does the following work for you?
{
return location.search.indexOf('emulatedStack') != -1 ? 'true' :
'false';
}
Description:
This changes how JS stack emulation is enabled to take adv
Reviewers: kplatfoot, Ray Ryan,
Message:
Review requested.
Description:
This change declares the default filename suffixes on the resource types
instead of constants in the ResourceGenerators.
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/61802
Affected files:
M user/src/com/goo
> Is there an appropriate more general home for this? I know I do it all
the time.
> Could it be an instance method on JClassType?
Moved to JClassType.findAnnotationInTypeHierarchy()
> For annotations marked @Inherited, would the super-crawl even be
necessary?
@Inherited doesn't work for superi
LGTM with nits.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/62804/diff/1/2
File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/css/GenerateCssAst.java (left):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/62804/diff/1/2#oldcode695
Line 695:
Missing newline?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/62804/diff/1/2
File user/src/co
LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/721804/diff/1/2
File
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/domain/Person.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/721804/diff/1/2#newcode31
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/domain/Person.java:31:
id
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Description:
Finish modernizing the DynaTableRF sample to use an event-based
application model.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/733802/show
Affected files:
M
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/733802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
New patch uploaded.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/733802/diff/1/3
File
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/client/DayCheckBox.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/733802/diff/1/3#newcode38
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/client/
LGTM, just a couple of code style nits I saw re-reading the patch.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/714801/diff/48001/6003
File user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/client/DataResource.java (right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/714801/diff/48001/6003#newcode35
user/src/com/google/gwt/res
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Description:
Deprecate the DeferredCommand API.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/718802/show
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client/Command.java
D user/src/com/google/gwt/user/client
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/718802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
I already have that. Do you want it in the same patch?
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit Team
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Added callsite updates to the patch.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/718802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/750801/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/SymbolData.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/750801/diff/1/2#newcode86
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/linker/SymbolData.java:86: Object
getCastableTypeMap();
What's the retu
> that would do exactly what I need, but they have default visibility
> and are indicated "for testing purposes only". Is there any reason why
> these method couldn't be made public?
Because the public API requires the use of class literals, it forces
the .class file for the annotation to be on th
> At first glance, this would appear to anger the SingleJSO gods. However,
> because NodeImpl contains implementations of all Node methods, there is no
> actual ambiguity as to which method implementation to bind to. The "this is
> a bug" wording in the error also raised my eyebrows a bit :)
Is No
LGTM, the comments are mostly questions to make sure that I understand
what the code is intended to do.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/755801/diff/5001/6002
File
samples/dynatablerf/src/com/google/gwt/sample/dynatablerf/client/CalendarProvider.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.
@Miguel,
FWIW, since we the time bounds of further optimizing this patch are
not yet
clear, I'd be in favor of landing it and then doing a second round of
optimizations.
This patch achieves its stated goal, although there are some code style
issues that need to be addressed.
@Scott,
Do you
LGTM with nits.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/750801/diff/10002/45012
File user/src/com/google/gwt/rpc/linker/CastableTypeDataImpl.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/750801/diff/10002/45012#newcode24
user/src/com/google/gwt/rpc/linker/CastableTypeDataImpl.java:24: *
Add a p
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> AbstractImagePrototype.create(myImageResource).getHTML()
Yes.
There is no getHTML() method on the ImageResource interface because
the choice of how to render the data is ultimately part of the UI
toolkit.
--
Bob Vawter
Google Web Toolkit
Reviewers: Ray Ryan,
Message:
This isn't ready for review quite yet, but it's a first cut of being
able to edit records and have them persist on the server.
Description:
Initial support for round-trip edits in the DynaTableRF sample.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review th
I've been working on a patch that improves test integration when using
CssResource. The gist of the patch is that CssResource will have a
getDebugInfo() method that provides additional metadata about the
CssResource and all class selectors used in the input to a CssResource
will be available on a
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Moocar wrote:
> I'm trying to generate a bunch of ClientBundles with the associated
> images in the same directory. I can't figure out how to write the
> image files to the same directory as the java files generated with
> GeneratorContext.tryCreate(...).
UiBinder
sMap(sourceClassName, sourceClassName);
It is a builder and should probably be named something like
DebugInfoModel.
Description:
Add debugging information to CssResource.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/770801/show
Affected files:
A user/src/com/
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/773801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/8
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rebind/context/AbstractResourceContext.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766803/diff/1/8#newcode50
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rebind/context/AbstractResourceContext.java:50:
new Refe
er to allow access to static fields.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Suggested by: sonnyf
Please review this at http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/781801/show
Affected files:
M user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/UiBinderParser.java
M user/src/com/google/gwt/uibinder/rebind/
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/769802/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Change LGTM, but why is this a problem in practice? Isn't the generated
source transient?
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/776803/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/789801/diff/1/2
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rebind/context/AbstractClientBundleGenerator.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/789801/diff/1/2#newcode702
user/src/com/google/gwt/resources/rebind/context/AbstractClientBundleGenerator.java
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766802/diff/1/2
File
user/src/com/google/gwt/validation/client/AbstractBeanDescriptor.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/766802/diff/1/2#newcode27
user/src/com/google/gwt/validation/client/AbstractBeanDescriptor.java:27:
* Abstract BeanDescripto
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/760802/diff/6001/1029
File
samples/validation/src/com/google/gwt/sample/validation/Validation.gwt.xml
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/760802/diff/6001/1029#newcode3
samples/validation/src/com/google/gwt/sample/validation/Validation.gwt.xml:3:
Upd
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/794801/diff/1/2
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/JPrimitiveType.java
(left):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/794801/diff/1/2#oldcode9
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/JPrimitiveType.java:9: *
Fix whitespace jitter.
http://gw
LGTM
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/760802/diff/6001/1032
File
samples/validation/src/com/google/gwt/sample/validation/client/Validation.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/760802/diff/6001/1032#newcode55
samples/validation/src/com/google/gwt/sample/validation/client/Validati
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/794801/diff/8001/9001
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/JPrimitiveType.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/794801/diff/8001/9001#newcode43
dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/core/ext/typeinfo/JPrimitiveType.java:43:
DESC_FLOAT, "0.0");
Ready for another look.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/767801/show
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
RPC changes LGTM.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/751803/diff/6001/7014
File user/src/com/google/gwt/rpc/server/WebModeClientOracle.java
(right):
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/751803/diff/6001/7014#newcode64
user/src/com/google/gwt/rpc/server/WebModeClientOracle.java:64: // the
symbol
Reviewers: rjrjr,
Message:
There's now a generator to create the glue code. Once committed, the
editor support should be good enough to start experimenting with.
Description:
Initial add of generator for RequestFactoryEditorDriver.
Patch by: bobv
Review by: rjrjr
Please review this at
The formatting in these files looks really off, looking at the
indentation of the string concatenation code.
Ray says not to hold this up on the DocumentFragment stuff.
LGTM if you fix the formatter.
http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/794801/diff/32001/33001
File dev/core/src/com/google/gwt/c
201 - 300 of 832 matches
Mail list logo
