@Miroslav
Command Pattern don't loose type safety!
and it's a great pattern that give so much advantages, so this issue
it' very important for all the gwt community.
I hope runAsync will be patched to make code splitting right in
presence of this largely adopded pattern.
On 4 Giu, 14:25, Miroslav Pokorny <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
