Re: Advice for GWT.create and tag ?

yes... i understand.. it's obvious, but the property defined that
cause the other compilations was in another gwt.xml file.
The fact is that i need to rearange the UI for a lot of widgets in my
app when using a mobile phone browser. So i figured that using
GWT.create and replacing a class with one that overrides some of the
drawing logic would be an elegant solution. For that, i created a
property named "is.mobile" with true/false values.
So i don't like the fact that i have to compile another 12
permutations, but if it is a good way of doing this, well i guess it's
ok.

Btw, when i removed the replace-with tag, those other 12 permutations
were no more performed. So if i have a property defined, those
permutations are compiled only if that property is used somewhere ?

On Aug 30, 3:25 pm, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 août, 11:54, Ice13ill <andrei.fifi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm developing an app for 2 languages and GWT performs 12 compilation
> > (2*6 for each browser)
> > But i also need to develop a second UI for some widgets so i decided
> > to use the <replace-with> tag for replacing a class with one of it's
> > children and also instantiating that class with GWT.create().
> > the problem is that now GWT performs 24 compilation (and it seems very
> > awkward because the gwt library uses a lot of these replace-with/
> > create() stuff). So if i use a second replace-with tag and
> > GWT.create() for another class replacement, will that generate another
> > 12 compilations ? (36 total !)
>
> The number of permutation is dependent upon the number of deferred-
> binding properties and their possible values, not the number of
> <replace-with> or <generate-with> rules.
>
> > The question is: am i doing smth wrong ? or should i adopt another
> > strategy for using multiple classes ?
> > Please advice !
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "a second UI for some widgets" so
> I can't tell how you should do it (and whether <replace-with> and more
> generally deferred-binding is appropriate for your case).
> What's clear is that you seem to have added a new deferred-binding
> property (<define-property>) with two possible values (to be
> determined at runtime by a property-provider or explicitly using a
> <meta name=gwt:property>), and you should question yourself whether
> this is needed.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.