Re: "without" instead of "with" for RequestFactory requests
Nope, not using editors. I haven't dove into that part of the data tools yet. Ryan On Jun 30, 2:16 pm, Jeff Larsen wrote: > Are you using editors? If so, you can do > > fetchRequest.with(editorDriver.getPaths()); > > Check out the PersonEditorWorkflow.java in Dynatablerf for in context use. -- 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: "without" instead of "with" for RequestFactory requests
Are you using editors? If so, you can do fetchRequest.with(editorDriver.getPaths()); Check out the PersonEditorWorkflow.java in Dynatablerf for in context use. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/T0MRWbCGf-0J. 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.
"without" instead of "with" for RequestFactory requests
Having just started developing with RequestFactory, I've found the requirement to use the "with" method to specify which nested proxies should be downloaded when a proxy or collection of proxies to be rather cumbersome. Even when I remember to call with, (which is rare, but hopefully that changes), it is still a hassle to walk the hierarchy to make sure I get what I need. I'd like to propose that there be a "without" method in addition to a "with" message. It's much more likely that I know which objects I don't need, and that I would not need a whole hierarchy starting with the values I pass to without. If I do need some of the proxies, it's likely that I want all of the components, not just the proxy itself. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? I don't think it would be hard to implement, as the necessary code simply requires some reflection oriented code on the server. Ryan -- 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.