Thanks Thomas. I'll give patching the correct version a go. I can see some obvious ones that I wouldn't think need to be in there, like "dom", "editor", and "uibinder".
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/KF9R-Uqe7zkJ.
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-we...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
As you're talking about it: is it planned to publish it as a Maven artifact along with GWT 2.4? And if so, do you know already which groupId and artifactId it will use?(and talking about Maven, I suppose you have scripts to prepare the deployments, and pom.xml files; what's the reason for them not being in the source repository? it would make life a bit easier to us, people building from source)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/JYFY_7Nqp-0J.
To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Good point, Thomas. Agreed, the POMs should be part of the open source project, and community participation is welcome. I'll work on getting them checked in.
As for the group/artifact IDs, I expect we'll want to use groupId com.google.web.bindery with artifacts requestfactory-server and requestfactory-client. I'll double-check to make sure there are no GWT references in the jars, but I'm sure that was the intent of moving to com.google.web.bindery. Does this make sense?