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
When you run your web app in hosted mode, specify a log level of
SPAM. The gwt compiler will then be more helpful - it will generate
detailed messages about what is wrong with your class. In particular
it will tell you if you're missing a default constructor or if you
forgot to implement IsSeria
> 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 do the same thing, inspired by Ray Ryan's talk
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 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 parameterized method calls on the RPC service. Is that true,
or
Thought I'd point to my command pattern examples:
http://github.com/jdwyah/tocollege.net/tree/f97ed4ff3f31c1c463eb426c34a55de439c601b3/src/main/java/com/apress/progwt/client/domain/commands
I found the command pattern to be just the ticket to deal with XSRF
attacks. In the directory above you can
Yeah, that took me a while to figure out too - I do mention that on
the 'Getting Started' example for gwt-dispatch. Better error messages
would definitely be helpful...
David
On Jul 6, 8:17 pm, martinhansen
wrote:
> Gr!
>
> I found out why! Gr!
>
> The Action and Response classe
Hello Herme,
now it finally works. I've used your great and simple example and
created a simple GWT application from it to check a user name and a
password. For anyone interested, I've uploaded the sample application.
It's essentially the same, just using GWT.
http://rapidshare.de/files/47769639
Gr!
I found out why! Gr!
The Action and Response classes must have an empty default constructor
to be serializable. I've had this error before. Unfortunately, the GWT
compiler error message is anything but helpful in this case. G.
On 6 Jul., 11:57, martinhansen wrote:
> He
Hello Herme,
your example is very interesting. I downloaded it and changed it to
work with GWT. But I was not successful. When I run my application,
the compiler complains about my client service interface:
[ERROR] Type 'com.isp.gwtpattern.client.rpc.Response' was not
serializable and has no c
Martin,
For really simple example you can see here:
http://itsp.typepad.com/voip/2009/07/gwt-implementing-rpc-command-pattern-on-server.html
At the end, you will need to add some more code, but you can see how
the pattern works (it helped me!)
Herme
On Jul 5, 10:16 am, martinhansen
wrote:
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
Martin,
For really simple example, look at
http://itsp.typepad.com/voip/2009/07/gwt-implementing-rpc-command-pattern-on-server.html
This is really simple, far from complete, but you can see how the
pattern works
Herme
On Jul 5, 10:16 am, martinhansen
wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> I've read your
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?
Does anyone know a really simple example? The exam
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
For general information and benefits of the Command Pattern, see this
article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_pattern
GWT has some additional quirks that would make an abstracted command
pattern nice, but I can see how you could say the added complexity
might detract from those benefits.
Can someone explain how this is useful? I don't know what a command
pattern is. Why should I use command patterns and not the traditional
way? What is the difference? At first look, this seems to be a lot
more complicated, so I'm a little confused.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
Hi all,
I extracted the command-related code from my current project and have
posted it here:
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-dispatch/
The original code was working fine, but I haven't had a chance to
test it since it was extracted from the project. It does compile,
although you will currently n
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 of the IProcedure that is to be run
on the server.
I'm very
Hi,
I have been playing a while, and I like Dave Peterson's, even with
that class proliferation, I wrote a simple (and incomplete) example
code:
http://itsp.typepad.com/voip/2009/07/gwt-implementing-rpc-command-pattern-on-server.html
Thanks
On 4 jul, 15:49, David Peterson wrote:
> Jason: I'll
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
All,
Ok, just relooked and apparently the approach I described above was
part of the 0.8 Shindig release, not the current 0.9. The pattern is
still similar, but the implementation is a bit more confusing if you
look at the Shindig code directly. Other than the references above to
the Shindig sour
David,
The Apache Shindig project (reference implementation of OpenSocial)
provides another approach for registering ActionHandlers. The Shindig
OpenSocial API code uses a HandlerDispatcher to dispatch Action
handling (as opposed to using the Servlet to do this directly). For
application specific
Thanks both to David and ClusterCougar for your efforts!
I've also been struggeling with this for a while now and got something
similar to the command model Ray Ryan described it in the talk.
Your version of it David, with the undo-functionality, sounds very
interessting though. I'd be very inte
David,
Thank you for your help,
How is "type" related to getActionType method on ActionbHandler
interface?, do you have different services?
Herme
On 4 jul, 03:51, David Peterson wrote:
> Just a couple of other comments on this general topic.
>
> 1. Yes, it's one-class-per RPC method. This is
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
There are a couple of ways to go about it, and I'm not 100% happy with
my current solution as a 'best practice'. It's a bit convoluted,
really. Current I'm using Guice on the server-side, so I bind them to
'ActionHandler.class', and then a post-config step pulls all
ActionHandler bindings and regi
Thanks David. That looks like a much better solution. The only reason
I did all those generics was because I was still trying to wrap my
head around the problem. Based on this, I've come up with some ideas
I'm going to try to implement. How do you register your
ActionHandlers?
On Jul 3, 8:55 am,
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
I thought I posted this last night, but I don't see it. Apologies if
this is a dupe.
I've tried to implement the command pattern using generics, but have
some hangups. You can see my code at
http://code.google.com/p/gwt-command-pattern/
Hangups:
1) Too many parameters. It's just not pretty
2)
On Jun 25, 5:12 pm, Herme Garcia wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After listening carefully Google IO's session from Ray Ryan about
> "Best Practices For Architecting Your GWT App" :
>
> http://code.google.com/intl/es-ES/events/io/sessions/GoogleWebToolkit...
>
> He suggests a command pattern implementation fo
32 matches
Mail list logo
