On 29 nov, 10:55, ep wrote:
> Thomas, in fact it would be really nice if GWT.create() would not
> require literals, we wanted to use a template method throughout our
> framework to allow to declare the classes to instantiate, maybe you
> can provide the issue number so we can vote for it :-)
Th
Thomas, in fact it would be really nice if GWT.create() would not
require literals, we wanted to use a template method throughout our
framework to allow to declare the classes to instantiate, maybe you
can provide the issue number so we can vote for it :-)
> > But after a month I discovered that t
Thank you for the reply
I did not know much about GWT-RPC, bay be I should study more before
making questions...
I was aware of the generic call, but looks to me like a cast :)
I was NOT aware of the feature called 'type inference'. I used my IDE
to complete, and noticed that only Object methods
On 26 nov, 21:12, "Alessandro Carraro (JUG Padova)"
wrote:
> A simple qestion, sorry if it is a FAQ:
>
> Why
> public static T create(Class classLiteral)
> and not
> public static T create(Class classLiteral)
With GWT-RPC you pass the "synchronous" (extends RemoteService)
interface as an
A simple qestion, sorry if it is a FAQ:
Why
public static T create(Class classLiteral)
and not
public static T create(Class classLiteral)
the second one would save me from a lot of unnecessary casts (IMHO).
What's worse, I tried to write the helper function:
@SuppressWarnings("unch
