I meant to say "This is an ugly workaround..." On Jan 10, 5:56 pm, Y2i <yur...@gmail.com> wrote: > It looks like the feature request was accepted: > > http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5367 > > This is an workaround, but it's how I'm planning to deal with the > polymorphism until it's fully supported by the request factory. > > --------------------------------------------- > interface FruitWrapper extends ValueProxy { > // returns null if the fruit is not an apple > AppleProxy getApple(); > // returns null if the fruit is not a grape > GrapeProxy getGrape(); > // etc... > // ... > > } > > interface MyEntityProxy extends EntityProxy { > void setFruit(FruitWrapper fruit); > FruitWrapper getFruit(); > > // More important is querying various fruits > List<FruitWrapper> queryFruits(some parameters);} > > --------------------------------------------- > > If there is a better option please share, I'd be very interested... > > On Jan 10, 2:54 pm, Andigator <andiga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Will RequestFactory support the use of generics and/or inheritance on > > ValueProxy? > > > For example, say I have FruitValueProxy. AppleProxy, OrangeProxy and > > GrapeProxy extend it. My EntityProxy must have setters for all three > > fruits individually instead of just writing setFruit(FruitValueProxy > > proxy). Is there a workaround or plans for improvement?
-- 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.
