Does it really make sense to give all serivices the same intf. Im sure
because everything comes back to a big switch of some sort to dispatch the
different types of command results. With different end points this problem
does not exist.
If you really must batch pick the ones that actually belong to each other,
as they are a logical unit and sharing an intf makes sense.
The command pattern is for operations that are related its not intended for
each and every type of operation no matter how unrelated they are. GWT buys
you great type safety something one loses with Javascript and this uber
command pattern throws all that out.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:13 PM, David <david.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Less maintenance on the async, declarative transaction management,
> undo, batching, less web.xml tweeking, ... there are many reasons why
> we also use a command pattern.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Miroslav Pokorny
> <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why use a uber command pattern for all services. This only leads to some
> > controller code to dispatch the command on the server which means
> everything
> > gets funneled thru a single point with no real gain. Keep the services
> > separate each w/ their own respective end points and service interfaces.
> > That way the exact problem described below is also avoided as an added
> > benefit. Command pattern for browser apps is so struts and imho not
> needed
> > for GWT RPC. After all what do you gain ?
> >
> > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Julio Faerman <jfaer...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am trying to split a GWT app that uses the command (action) pattern.
> >> The problem is that "GWT.create(ActionService.class)" causes every
> >> subclass of the return and parameter types to be included in the
> >> initial fragment.
> >>
> >> For instance, my action interface is:
> >>
> >> public interface ActionService extends RemoteService {
> >> <T extends Response, V extends Request> T execute(V req) throws
> >> ActionFailedException;
> >> }
> >>
> >> the problem is that "module1.SomeRequest" and "module2.OtherRequest"
> >> gets included in the initial fragment.
> >> Do you see a way around this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Julio Faerman
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
> >
> >
> > --
> > mP
> >
> > --
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>
--
mP
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
