Thank you all for your feed back; you are correct of course, the limitations I've mentioned are results of the Serializable interface requirements.
@obsega; Yes private members and only getters (accessors) is currently what I have. @Thomas; I was not aware of CustomFieldSerializer (which appears to be default GWT behavior despite being documented by WOGWT). This looks like it might be exactly what I'm after, I will give it a go; thank you! On Feb 6, 12:04 am, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 9:53 am, Syntax <j.dixon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I would REALLY like to be able to define my members as final; however > > as noted on the GWT serialization page: > > - Fields that are declared final are also not exchanged during RPCs, > > so they should generally be marked transient as well. > > > I was wondering why final fields are not transferred? I can only > > imagine that when the instance is created server side it uses the no- > > args constructor and reflection to set the values? > > > I find it quite annoying that I am required to enter a no args > > constructor, surely the RPC generator can just manually add and empty > > no args constructor if none already exists? > > > One suggestion from a colleague was to add support for the > > @ConstructorProperties annotation to GWT serialization classes, so > > that the GWT serialization back end calls the constructor with > > arguments and matches field names with the annotation values. Has > > anyone considered this? > > Just an idea but... couldn't you use a CustomFieldSerializer? -- 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-tool...@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.
