> as your framework does probably generate quite some code to make > all these declarative binding features possible
No, actually--the bindings don't have any code generation to them, either build-time or gwt-compile-time. They're pure Java, which means they run in unit tests (it would suck if they didn't...then too much logic/behavior wouldn't be testable). > You only have UiBinder xml and while generating the view > implementation you have no idea what events the developer is > interested in. So you are forced to expose all ui:field > widgets/elements to allow the developer to do something with the > view. Precisely. That is a good thing, IMO. Why is that a bad thing? It means the view is so dumb it doesn't (and *can't*) have any logic in it. (Sorry, feel free to treat that question as rhetorical if you want to drop the Tessell tangent. :-). > So for slightly more complex things you also end up with anonymous classes. Of course. But, speaking from experience, it's surprising how often that is not true. > Button/TextBox available will be really handy for testing. > So for this use case I would go for these Is* interfaces in GWT > proper as they can encourage people to not use full blown MVP for > everything while still being able to write non-hacky tests. Cool. - 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.
