If I saw #2 in any code I was responsible for I would hunt down and beat the person who wrote it. With a rusty spork.
I may be slightly resentful of having bad code dumped on me. Possibly... Defining your methods return type is good practice. I recommend creating a result object to return for the same reason I recommend not returning type Object on every method. Its good documentation, and, in my mind, makes for a more stable and healthy application. You'll probably forget what index #3 in your array is a few months down the line anyway, and if you want to try and remove a result from the array you will have a hard time tracking down where it gets used. All remote methods in the GWT application I maintain use a result object. I have found it to be well worth the extra bit of code and effort in order to gain the benefits. -Ben On Mar 18, 12:50 pm, "ss.require" <[email protected]> wrote: > I want to create an RPC-method that returns 3 java-objects that can > have different types. These types are always Serializable. So I have 2 > possible approaches: > 1)Create a new class "SomeClass" with properties of these types and > return this object: public SomeClass someMethod()...... > 2)Retrun Serializable array: public Serializable[] someMethod()...... > > I prefer the 2) approache, cause I don't like to create new class just > to pass objects through RPC. Is it correct to do that from the > perspective of GWT? Or I should create a new class every time when I > want to pass a cortège of objects of different types? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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.
