Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
> > - I would prefer using ApplicationRequestFactory instead of >> MyRequestFactory, etc... >> > - I would move the files in client.application to client >> > > Done. Much more logical. > how about moving: model to: shared/proxy ? -g. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
> > Is what you are suggesting closer to a 1:1 mapping of places to activities? > With an AdminUserPlace taking you to AdminUserActivity and AdminPagePlace to > AdminPageActivity? Then each place only stores information relevant to the > activity to which it maps to? > I am not really suggesting something, certainly not a 1:1 mapping. I was thinking about having 3 places: PersonListPlace PersonEditPlace PersonCreatePlace and 2 activities: PersonListActivity PersonEditActivity but to tell you the truth, I kind of like your version (one single PersonPlace). I am wondering what more experienced GWT developers think though. thanks, -g. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
> > - Is using a single PlaceController with multiple 'identifiers' really a > best practice? > I'm not sure of the proper implementation of this. In other implementations of this type of system, I have always used what GWT calls a "place" as something which encapsulates numerous "activities" which have a common similarity. For example, I would have thought you would have a single AdminPlace which managed activities such as AdminUserActivity, AdminPageActivity, AdminForumActivity, etc. Is what you are suggesting closer to a 1:1 mapping of places to activities? With an AdminUserPlace taking you to AdminUserActivity and AdminPagePlace to AdminPageActivity? Then each place only stores information relevant to the activity to which it maps to? > - I would prefer using ApplicationRequestFactory instead of > MyRequestFactory, etc... > - I would move the files in client.application to client > Done. Much more logical. > Moreover, I would love to see a more advanced domain object and related > Editor (maybe even > an object graph Editor). > I definitely agree. The current implementation is more of a proof-on-concept than anything useful. I have a GitHub issue to expand editors already created: https://github.com/JakeWharton/GwtBase/issues/issue/11 Also, thanks for the pull request! It has been merged. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Some questions / suggestions: - Is using a single PlaceController with multiple 'identifiers' really a best practice? - I would prefer using ApplicationRequestFactory instead of MyRequestFactory, etc... - I would move the files in client.application to client Moreover, I would love to see a more advanced domain object and related Editor (maybe even an object graph Editor). thanks, -g. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Hi Thomas, Thanks for the suggestions. This is exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. I have updated the project with implementations of your recommendations. I do have a question about provider injection into the ActivityMapper, though. Is it necessary for me to inject an instance of a Provider for each of the activity types? Is it possible to inject a generic provider which can instantiate any of the activities via something like provider.get(SomeActivity.class) or provider.get()? -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Why are your activities singletons? (they're injected into the ActivityMapper, which is instantiated once only, so in practice they are singletons, even if not declared as such in your GIN bindings). Activities are "cheap", so unless you *have* to maintain state between use (I believe it's not the case for the PersonEditActivity, it could be for the PersonListActivity but not currently in your code), you shouldn't use singletons. Note that in this case, you should call setPresenter from within your activity's start() (to make sure an "instantiated but not started" activity doesn't set itself as the "presenter for the view" and "steal" this role from an "already started" activity); and I like to call setPresenter(null) from onCancel and onStop. They're also instantiated eagerly (because they're injected in the ActivityMapper, instead of injecting a Provider), which means their view is instantiated eagerly too. In such a simple app that's not really a problem because you're likely to "use" all the activities and their views, but as the application grows, it means you're instantiating things that you might never use. Finally, you should probably extend AbstractActivity rather than directly implement Activity (there was a discussion a few months back about possibly introducing new methods to the interface, which would be breaking changes if you implement it directly, whereas there would be a default implementation in AbstractActivity) BTW, I've only looked at the activities. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Very good contribution Jake. I think this is what most developers who are taking their first steps in GWT would like to have. And it can be used as the foundations of every single web app you make. Just use whatever you need and delete what you don´t. That´s the aim, isn´t it? -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
> > I suppose I should also look at supplying a Maven archetype so that you can > just generate the project in one command, but for now this allows for simple > setup and execution out-of-the-box. > Yeah, a Maven archetype would be useful! thanks, -g. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Well it's not supposed to actually *do *anything. It is only sample application which provides the foundation for building your own web app. It is meant to be used as a platform to provide recommended design patterns using the most current technologies GWT has to offer. I am going to add a few fields to each person and maybe another Place but overall it will be functionally limited. I am more just looking for assurance that I am using things like MVP, RequestFactory, and Editors correctly and in the most-efficient manner. I suppose I should also look at supplying a Maven archetype so that you can just generate the project in one command, but for now this allows for simple setup and execution out-of-the-box. -- 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.
Re: GWT Base Application Featuring Best-Practice Technologies
Great projects, looks to be at an early stage though :( -g. -- 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.
