It looks like the new GWT (IsSerializable etc. ) syntax has been more less finilized, Is this issue on the agenda?
How about being able to pass params such as whitelist, noserver, or port to the GWT Shell?
And, at least on 6.0.5, the intentions for property files and classes exttending Message, doesn't always work. At least when waiting for the intention to catch newly added properties. How about being able to regenerate a Message interface class via a alt-enter or something?
And how about an intention that warns us when a module is missing a gwt.xml file? This bit one of the guys when he named the file module.xml instead of module.gwt.xml? Perhaps if a package is in a client directory and that client directory contains an xml file that doesn't follow the .gwt.xml convention?
And an intention that can move all locally defined gwt class variables like textbox or textarea to class scope so listeners can pick them up?
In article <c8a89437ee678c99be5ca8d0627@news.intellij.net>,
Nikolay.Chashnikov@jetbrains.com says...
How about being able to pass params such as whitelist, noserver, or port
to the GWT Shell?
And, at least on 6.0.5, the intentions for property files and classes
exttending Message, doesn't always work. At least when waiting for the
intention to catch newly added properties. How about being able to
regenerate a Message interface class via a alt-enter or something?
And how about an intention that warns us when a module is missing a
gwt.xml file? This bit one of the guys when he named the file module.xml
instead of module.gwt.xml? Perhaps if a package is in a client directory
and that client directory contains an xml file that doesn't follow the
.gwt.xml convention?
And an intention that can move all locally defined gwt class variables
like textbox or textarea to class scope so listeners can pick them up?
--
-
David H. McCoy
-