search

neo09 / gwt-platform

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/gwt-platform
0 stars 0 forks source link

Extending Gwt 2.1 EventBus interface #193

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
That would be a simple change to do, we still have more stuff than GWT 2.1 
EventBus though, but not less ! So our EventBus would be compatible with Gwt 
2.1 EventBus.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by goudreau...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2010 at 12:09

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Wouldn't this tie us to 2.1? Do we want to make GWTP dependent on 2.1 right now?

Original comment by philippe.beaudoin on 6 Sep 2010 at 11:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Don't have to be right now, but we should think about it. I don't mind to be 
tied to Gwt 2.1 for that, I even think we should take as much as we can from 
what's already existing. The only two methods in their eventBus interface are 
fireEvent and addHandler, methods that we also share.

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 7 Sep 2010 at 2:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
May be not possible anymore, EventBus just passed from an interface to an 
abstract class in trunk and now has everything  we have in our own 
implementation :D

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 10 Sep 2010 at 8:17

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Should we switch to theirs?

Original comment by philippe.beaudoin on 10 Sep 2010 at 8:22

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Not yet for sure... it's changing a lot lately.

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 10 Sep 2010 at 9:03

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
On one hand it's interesting to use as more standard features as possible. On 
the other hand, this will link us to GWT 2.1 and, as 2.1 is not freeeze, it can 
change from day to day.

Maybe we must find a way with the GWT team to share the same EventBus and 
freeze it now. Then, we would include this class in our source tree (with the 
GWT package) for older version of GWT or something like this...

Original comment by olivier....@free.fr on 10 Sep 2010 at 11:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sounds like a good idea. Anybody interested in approaching the GWT team on 
this? Also, since GWTP is still unstable too, we could consider matching their 
current event bus?

Original comment by philippe.beaudoin on 13 Sep 2010 at 3:24

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It seems the following method of our EventBus is not used:
- getHandler
- getHandlerCount
- isEventHandled

The fireEvent(GwtEvent<?>) and addHandler(Type<H>, H) methods are the same. 
Finally, only fireEvent(HasEventBus, GwtEvent) is not the same as 
fireEventFromSource(...) mostly because of HasEventBus. I think it can be 
easily moved.

Original comment by olivier....@free.fr on 14 Sep 2010 at 12:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I wouldn't mind trimming down these methods. I will try to get in contact with 
some people on the GWT team to pick their mind on the stability of their event 
bus interface.

Original comment by philippe.beaudoin on 15 Sep 2010 at 3:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by philippe.beaudoin on 22 Sep 2010 at 1:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was updated by revision e4c68e686a.

Since RC1 is out, I'm starting to work on using Gwt event bus instead of our 
own.

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2010 at 8:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was updated by revision d680232667.

Almost done, there's still one test that don't pass and to add Gwt 2.1 
dependent files inside google's package for legacy users.

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 27 Oct 2010 at 9:10

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
http://codereview.appspot.com/2770042/

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 28 Oct 2010 at 2:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This issue was closed by revision 2acaac1223.

Original comment by goudreau...@gmail.com on 28 Oct 2010 at 1:54