Hi guys,
Just a note for anyone who's using the 'gwt-presenter' or 'gwt-
dispatch' libraries. Because I can't monitor this group actively (too
much traffic here I'm afraid), I've created a Google Group for each of
the above, so if you want to ask questions, make suggestions, etc,
that's the best
Hi Arthur,
I'm not sure what the 'best practice' is, but using our 'gwt-
presenter' library (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-presenter) I've ended
up tying the Presenters together. In some cases you can be more
generic (use @Named to specify a particular implementation of a common
Presenter subclass
Hi all, I've been off-list for a bit. Good to see the discussion has
been continuing in my absense :)
For the record, I'm not in love with the current 'Place' manager
implementation in 'gwt-presenter'. I've gone through about 4 different
designs, and this is the one I hate the least so far. My ne
Given that 'Class.getInterfaces()' and 'Class.isInstance()' are not
implemented, basically all you've got is 'X instanceof Y'. A switch/
case statement perhaps?
David
On Jul 19, 6:04 am, Jacob wrote:
> I'm trying to determine whether or not an object implements a given
> interface at runtime. A
hit wrote:
> On Jul 15, 9:36 pm, David Peterson wrote:
> - Thinking further, I think it's better to separate the EventBus from
> - the Command system somewhat. The reason being that generally, events
> - are used to update on changes that have already happened, or are
> a
Fair point :)
On Jul 16, 9:32 pm, Daniel Jue wrote:
> Alejandro's source code is here:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/puntosoft/
>
> > Anyway, there are ways to do it of course. I'll be interested to see
> > your solution if you make it public :)
>
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
Hi Alejandro,
Firstly, you can absolutely do it using the same EventBus. I just
don't think it's that great a fit, personally. But if what you have
works, use it :)
> > Thinking further, I think it's better to separate the EventBus from
> > the Command system somewhat. The reason being that gene
view and complex presenters
> which include other presenters?
>
> Thx for any help,
> Norman
>
> 2009/7/15 David Peterson :
>
>
>
> >> I already use your gwt-dispatch successfully;) Thx for the pointer anyway..
>
> > Heh - of course you do, sorry ab
> I already use your gwt-dispatch successfully;) Thx for the pointer anyway..
Heh - of course you do, sorry about that.
FYI, I've now added a short 'Getting Started' doc:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-presenter/wiki/GettingStarted
Enjoy :)
David
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
ocs up for 'presenter'... :)
David
On Jul 16, 5:32 am, Norman Maurer wrote:
> Very interesting.. could you add some "Get started" documentation ? I
> just want to get a better idea how to use it ;)
>
> Bye,
> Norman
>
> 2009/7/15 David Peterson :
>
>
O Talk. (what I understand from the
> > slides).
> > The working example is trivial but the code uses an event bus (using gwt
> > HandleManager) and the command pattern for the RPC Service.
>
> > Comments are welcome, I would like to know if the implementation is good.
&g
My realistic approach has been to just pass out the original widget.
An alternate approach would be to create your own interface with the
methods you need from the widget in question, and then create a simple
sub-class of the widget which implements your interface.
Eg:
public interface Mapable {
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. The only note of it I could see
was an outstanding issue where it needs to be brought into the GWT
trunk...
Let me know if you dig it up.
David
On Jul 14, 12:30 pm, "brett.wooldridge"
wrote:
> Trite answer. It would be a good answer if the UIBinder were a
There's certainly nothing to stop you, and you could even just add
your own RPC Event and have a listener trigger the server-side call.
In fact, in my own implementation of Ray's example (http://
code.google.com/p/gwt-dispatch), the Action and Response are both
interfaces, so you could just have t
just not sure if its a bug or if I'm to stupid ;)
>
> Thx,
> Norman
>
> Ps: could you please upload the new snapshot to your maven2 repos ?
>
> On Jul 7, 10:27 am, David Peterson wrote:
>
> > Yeah, thanks for the report. I've just been able to get back to
>
On Jul 8, 8:03 am, pohl wrote:
> > Essentially, I couldn't get the GWT compiler to work with a service
> > with the following definition:
>
> > public interface DispatchService extends RemoteService {
> > , R extends Result> R execute( A action )
> > throws Exception;
>
> > }
>
> I tried to d
My approach is basically along the lines of #2. However, taking it a
step further, my rule is essentially to remove all operational code
from data objects completely. So, no 'save()' methods, etc on the
actual object. Instead, you would call a 'save( myObject )' method on
the service instead. That
Yeah, thanks for the report. I've just been able to get back to
plugging the library back into my own project and found the same
problem. There was a bug in the ActionHandler linking code. I've
checked in the fix to SVN and updated the SNAPSHOT download. Just
download and replace your existing JAR
Hi Nathan,
On Jul 7, 7:24 am, Nathan Wells wrote:
> I think this is mostly directed at David, but if anyone has answers,
> I'd welcome them.
>
> In your command pattern implementation or somewhere on this thread
> (can't remember where I saw it) you mention that GWT doesn't properly
> implement
I think we're not exactly sure how you want to connect GWT with a CMS.
GWT is a toolkit for building applications, while CMS's are actual
applications.
How are you wanting to combine them exactly?
David
On Jul 7, 12:07 am, Tracy Greene wrote:
> Just to clarify:
>
> Are you suggesting that I wr
complete. Where does the actual
> > > > action take place in his example, let's say, querying some contact
> > > > details from a remote data base? I think this important part is
> > > > missing.
> > > > The ContactService defines a method called "e
Hey Geraldo,
Check out this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_thread/thread/ccb5b07a24ac5a97/4b98bf080e8bf231?lnk=gst&q=command+pattern#4b98bf080e8bf231
Also, I've posted an implementation of my understanding of Ray's
example here:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-di
On Jul 5, 6:16 pm, martinhansen
wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> I've read your source code and your example. It is very interesting.
> But although it's short and simple, I still don't understand it.
> Especially "GIN" and "GUICE" confuses me a lot. Can I use your example
> without these technologies
Hi Nathan,
On Jul 5, 2:15 am, Nathan Wells wrote:
> I updated my project to only use the two interfaces as suggested by
> David. Instead of using actionhandlers and registering them, I created
> an annotation for the IRemoteProcedureCall implementations that
> contains the canonical class name o
Yeah, there is some added complexity, however I found myself basically
implementing it in a much more ad-hoc fashion anyway, it's just that
some operations required a 'token' object with multiple parameters, or
returning another token with multiple return values, and some didn't.
This way, it's mo
adjustments and bug fixes, but it should be
fairly stable.
Enjoy!
David Peterson
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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-W
Jason: I'll admit I was unable to figure out exactly what Shindig's
approach is, exactly, unfortunately. However there is definitely more
than one way to skin this cat. My current implementation an Action, a
Result and a Handler for each operation. This does result in some
class proliferation, but
Just a couple of other comments on this general topic.
1. Yes, it's one-class-per RPC method. This is actually a good thing,
since it lets you do item 2, which is:
2. You can add 'undo' to your actions. This is particularly handy if
you build your Action classes using item 3:
3. You can have one
I'm going to try to implement. How do you register your
> ActionHandlers?
>
> On Jul 3, 8:55 am, David Peterson wrote:
>
> > Hey ClusterCougar,
>
> > I think your implementation is over-complicated. On the client side,
> > just stick to two basic interfaces (an
Hey ClusterCougar,
I think your implementation is over-complicated. On the client side,
just stick to two basic interfaces (and concrete implementations there-
of) - Action and Result (I'm using 'Result' rather than 'Response'
because that is often used in HTTP-related APIs), or in your API,
IPro
On Jun 20, 1:33 am, Ian Petersen wrote:
> > My (limited) understanding of what Ray Ryan was saying (and what I
> > understand of MVP) is that the presenter is completely separated from the
> > DOM elements (in order to facilitate testing, and because the view is solely
> > responsible for the vie
31 matches
Mail list logo
