There's certainly nothing to stop you, and you could even just add
your own RPC Event and have a listener trigger the server-side call.
In fact, in my own implementation of Ray's example (http://
code.google.com/p/gwt-dispatch), the Action and Response are both
interfaces, so you could just have the base class be a GwtEvent
subclass.
The main complication I guess is the server side. I haven't tested to
see if you can just use a custom EventHandler server-side without
changes, but I'm guessing it would work fine.
David
On Jul 11, 4:41 pm, Kwhit <kwhitting...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just throwing up an idea here to see how many bullet holes it comes
> down with.
>
> I'm playing around with the command pattern which is a hot topic at
> the moment and wondered why it shouldn't be merged with the EventBus?
> The command pattern proposed by RR has to add a response object - the
> original doesn't (I don't have a GoF copy to hand), using and event
> bus would remove the requirement for it.
>
> Using the example presented by RR.
>
> 1/ User clicks on 'save' to save the edited phone number
>
> 2/ Presenter creates an RpcCommandEvent{<save>, <new phone number>}
> and fires it to the eventBus
>
> 3/ RpcPipe, listening for RpcCommandEvent events, ships them off the
> to the server
>
> --- Server side ---
>
> 4/ RpcPipeService receives the event and invokes a specialized handler
>
> 5/ The handler verifies (for the sake of the example but I would
> normally do this client side) the new phone number, finds it OK and
> updates the storage
>
> 6/ Handler returns new phone number for contact ID x
>
> 7/ RpcPipeService ships (returns) the response on across the pipe
>
> --- Back on the client side ---
>
> 8/ RpcPipe fires the RPC return value as an event on the bus
>
> 9/ Listeners to ContactInfoUpdated events update the phone number
>
> I, in my ignorance, find the above a net gain
>
> * +ve: One pipe fits all, no need to update the mechanics of the RPC
> * +ve, -ve: The event designer has to know that the event should be
> shipped over the pipe
> * +ve: The statefulness of the RPC mechanism (every request has a
> response) fades away
> * +ve: In fact the Pipe itself could disappear with a bus on the
> server (see below) - end to end unit testing
>
> In my event driven fever I would also like to have an event bus on the
> server so that the handlers could register themselves for events but I
> not worried too much about that yet.
>
> OK fire away!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
