> Yeah this Type 1 style is really PITA in the long term, especially if > views are a bit more complex.
I disagree; I actually prefer Type 1. Although to each their own, of course. > However, with the release of UiBinder we constantly tell > people/recommend to use the Type 2 style of MVP with UiBinder + > @UiHandler and a delegate interface if they ask for MVP in > gwt-discuss. UiHandler makes inner classes 2 lines shorter, but IMO it still leads to the same spaghetti code (reactive/imperative, instead of declarative). Tessell's binding DSL makes simple/common operations one line declarations (explicitly via Type 1-exposed widget interfaces, not UiHandlers). E.g. I don't see how UiHandlers/Type 2 could be as succinct as: https://github.com/stephenh/todomvc-tessell/blob/master/src/main/java/org/tessell/todomvc/client/app/TodoPresenter.java#L43 > So I think this argument looses some weight as probably no one really > wants to do the type 1 way anymore and only a minority still choose > it for new projects. Well, that is unfortunate, as MVP Type 1 with Tessell's view generation and binding DSL is quite pleasant. But, again, to each their own. :-) > No need for GWTMockUtilities.disarm() or gwtmockito then. Exactly. - Stephen -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
