Hello Thomas, you right.
Regards On 25 sep, 14:29, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 25 sep, 00:12, "marcelo melo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > While I understand that it must be done because GWT does not let one > > use reflection, I think that a small change could remove the necessity > > of such Provider. > > If, at the Controller and MacroCommand classes, instead of receiving > > references to Class<? extends ICommand> , the parameter becomes an > > instance of ICommand, and when invoking the registerCommand or > > subCommand we pass a new Instance of the desired Command, it could be > > achieved. > > > The only difference I see is that there would be always the same > > reference to the Commands, instead of creating a new instance each > > time. I don't know if that would be a problem. > > If you follow the "principles" of PureMVC that a command must be > "state-less", then it won't be a problem, but it allows you to write > stateful commands, whereas the pattern used in PureMVC prevents this > with throwaway instances. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
