Indeed, it seems to be good solutions too.
Thanks
Yves
On 15 déc, 10:15, Paul Robinson <ukcue...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You don't have to hard code anything to send class names. In the client,
> you can use this:
>
> class MyType<T extends MyGen> implements Serializable {
>
> String className;
>
> MyType() {} // mandatory no-arg contructor
>
> MyType(T anObject) { // with a non-null param value !
> this.className = anObject.getClass().getName();
> }
>
> }
>
> or this:
>
> class MyType<T extends MyGen> implements Serializable {
>
> String className;
>
> MyType() {} // mandatory no-arg contructor
>
> MyType(Class<? extends T> cls) { // with a non-null param value !
> this.className = cls.getName();
> }
>
> }
>
> and then on the server, if you need a Class rather than a String, use
> Class.forName(myType.className)
>
> HTH
> Paul
>
> On 14/12/10 18:49, yves wrote:
>
> > Hi all, thanks for your comments and advices.
>
> > To solve my problem I'll do something like Didier said : I'll
> > instantiate an object of type T (which is Serializable), instead of
> > Class<T>, and pass it to the server via the RPC.
>
> > class MyType<T extends MyGen> implements Serializable {
>
> > T anObject;
>
> > MyType() {} // mandatory no-arg contructor
>
> > MyType(T anObject) { // with a non-null param value !
> > this.anObject = anObject;
> > }
> > }
>
> > Doing so, the server will receive a MyType object, will recognize the
> > type T of anObject and will be able to select the right handler.
> > And even the generics is not anymore required as the type of anObject
> > will be checked dynamically by the server.
>
> > Actually class.getCanonicalName() is not implemented too in GWT, so my
> > previous post is not realistic.
>
> > I personnaly prefer this solution than harcode the full className (as
> > it will change if I reorganize the packages...)
>
> > Regards
> > Yves
>
> > On 14 d�c, 15:51, ep<eplisc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> you dont need to, just put a fullyqualified classname on the wire and
> >> forName() it in the VM. you may also think about providing your custom
> >> field serializer for the class, but actually would be nonsense since
> >> you anyway cannot use it reasonably on the client
>
> >> On 14 Dez., 12:20, yves<yves.ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> @Didier
> >>> Of course MyType implements Serializable . It is just a typo in the
> >>> example. Sorry.
>
> >>> @Paul
> >>> I didn't realized that Class is not GWT-serializable. Thanks for your
> >>> remark. I lost pretty much time to find out why I get an exception
> >>> during an RPC call
>
> >>> It would have been nice if Class<T> was serializable. I would have
> >>> used it to select an appropriate handler at server-side. Anyway I use
> >>> instead the canonical class name to map the handler, but the code is
> >>> little bit more uggly :-)
>
> >>> I noticed also the a call to class.hashCode() does not give the same
> >>> value in the (gwt-compiled)-client and in the (JVM running)-server.
> >>> In my attempts to workaround the "unserializability" of Class, I tried
> >>> to use the hashCode() value, unsuccessfully...
>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Yves
>
> >>> On 14 d�c, 10:42, Paul Robinson<ukcue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Class is not gwt-serializable.
>
> >>>> MyType has a non-final, non-transient field of type Class
>
> >>>> Therefore MyType is not serializable
>
> >>>> On 14/12/10 09:33, Didier Durand wrote:
>
> >>>>> Hi,
>
> >>>>> Serializable is an interface not a class. That's why it's not the list
> >>>>> you mention. An interface has nothing to be serialized per se.
>
> >>>>> You should let us know about your class MyType in order to better
> >>>>> help.
>
> >>>>> regards
>
> >>>>> didier
>
> >>>>> On Dec 14, 9:21 am, Paul Robinson<ukcue...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> If you look at the Class.java that GWT uses to emulate the JVM's Class,
> >>>>>> you'll see that it does not implement Serializable.
>
> >>>>>> On 13/12/10 22:19, yves wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
>
> >>>>>>> I have a class defined in a way similar to this:
>
> >>>>>>> class MyType<T extends MyGen> extends Serializable {
>
> >>>>>>> private Class<T> aClass;
>
> >>>>>>> public MyType() {}
>
> >>>>>>> public void setClass(Class<T> aClass) {
> >>>>>>> this.aClass = aClass;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> }
>
> >>>>>>> where MyGen is also Serializable
>
> >>>>>>> When I compile de project (I'am currently still using GWT 2.1.0 RC1),
> >>>>>>> then I find the following :
>
> >>>>>>> 1) the compiler (using the compiler options -extra, -work and -gen)
> >>>>>>> does not generate the code MyType_FieldSerializer.java as it does for
> >>>>>>> all other serializable classes.
>
> >>>>>>> 2) In the "extra" / rpclog dir, the class MyType is flagged like this:
> >>>>>>> Serialization status
> >>>>>>> Not serializable
>
> >>>>>>> 3) And when I run my app, I get an "InvocationException" : the client
> >>>>>>> is unable to make an RPC call with a parameter of type MyType.
>
> >>>>>>> Is it a bug in the compiler, or did I missed something about Class<T>
> >>>>>>> "serializability" ?
>
> >>>>>>> Thanks for your help
> >>>>>>> Yves
--
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.
