Thanks for that summary. Very cool project!
Nathan Wells
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM, ggeorg wrote:
> Yes hdcookbook project is a framework that helps seting up a blu-ray
> java developemnt enevironment (Blu-ray discs use JavaME for building
> menus based on Xlets kind of App
I'm a little confused... It seems like the project you link to has
more to do with tv's and dvd's... is the browser the "screen" in this
case? Also, what is Javelin? the Grin page links to it but it looks
like an non-existent project?
On Jul 27, 6:56 pm, ggeorg wrote:
> OK, I will prepare a first
I understand that adding the maven artifact to the svn repo might not
have been to help users. It would be nice to know what the GWTers are
thinking about this... Is Maven integration on a roadmap? is it just
being proposed/tested? It's okay if there's no promises, and if we
shouldn't rely on maven
Hey, I brought this up in the user's forum, but I forgot to post it
here! I'm working on designing a wrapper for all server
communications. I have a preliminary design doc here:
https://wave.google.com/wave/#dropdown:nav,minimized:contact,restored:search:group%253Agoogle-web-toolkit-contributors%2
Actually... no. I'll use that. Though I feel somewhat sheepish at not
having seen that, it would have been nice if the JavaDocs had pointed
me in that direction.
On Feb 20, 8:26 am, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:09 am, Nathan Wells wrote:
>
> > Is there a reason Select
Is there a reason SelectionEvent has only a protected constructor?
Usually, when GWT APIs seem unnecessarily restrictive, it's because
you want us to think before doing something that might be stupid. If
that's the case here, can anyone explain why?
It's not like it actually prevents me from insta
>
> Thinking outload...
>
> What about allowing ctors to take a HM. The other ctors use the default
> implementation. If you dont care for a HM then use the ctors without HM in
> the parameter list. That way
The problem with this is that you then have to add HM to the ctor for every
extension of
I'd say that if you wanted to implement a HandlerManager stack, it
would probably be best to do that internal to the HandlerManager,
rather than forcing a Widget to know how events are handled.
Assuming that is possible given the current Widget implementations
(others more expert than I would know
As a developer I absolutely agree with Mr. Ryan here... I hope that
this isn't taken the wrong way, but it's so difficult to customize any
given tool that GWT hands us. The eventual answer always seems to be
"make a custom build" which is extremely hard to sell to anyone other
than a GWT developer.
Les,
Your methodology ends up using the same basic idea as what I'm
currently using: annotations. The problem is that I end up having a
class on the client for every procedure on the server. Maybe I could
consolidate them into one big class with a bunch of tiny inner
classes.
In any case, it seem
Thanks Ian!
Nathan Wells
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Ian Petersen wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> You might want to have a look at , if it's still called
> that. If you are willing to put empty definitions of your server-side
> classes "on the client", then you could
John,
Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what I can work up.
Thanks,
Nathan
On Jan 27, 3:27 pm, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Nathan Wells wrote:
> > Let me back up a little bit. There may be a way to do what I want
> > without changing GWT's
em, and it's probably not the
most reasonable thing to ask for, but when I can do a getClass() on
any client-side object without a problem, It's hard for me to see why
I can't have an instance of class on the client-side, which has data
referencing the server-side.
On Jan 27, 2:05 pm,
irit" of GWT. I don't think that is the case, but I
would love to know for sure what can be done and what can't.
Thanks,
Nathan
On Jan 26, 9:30 am, Nathan Wells wrote:
> Sony,
>
> I disagree with taking an event-based approach to RPC, but this isn't
> really the for
ely firing/listening to events. You
> merely extend RemtoteRequestEvent and RemtoteRequestEvent and make
> sure any member content you add is serializable.
>
> Sony
>
> On Jan 25, 10:33 am, John Tamplin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Nathan Well
Hey,
I would like to be able to reference a server-side class on the client
side. My reason for doing this is as a wrapper for RPC that would
allow me to specify the Server-Side procedure I would like to execute.
For instance, I would like an API like this:
interface RpcService {
void call(Cla
Have you thought about implementing a custom EventBus/HandlerManager
that will register handlers based on type of event and class of the
model object? I don't have time to code it up right now, but it seems
like what you really need is information about the target handler
based on (1) the type of e
+1 to widget improvements
+1 to removing listeners - though this is a breaking change on a minor
release?
+1 to bug fixes - all bugs, especially the ones I've starred :)
+1 to data binding + validation
On Dec 17, 5:28 am, DanielK wrote:
> Version 2.0 tackled nearly all problems I had with GWT. H
what you want... allowing references to escape gets very
> > problematic, but not allowing them to escape makes it very hard to
> > actually get it to kick in for the exact case you're trying to solve.
>
> > Scott
>
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Nathan
using
UIBinder more.
In the mean time, am I to understand that your @UiHandler annotations should
be in your presenter classes? Some samples I've looked at haven't worked
this way. Is there a UIBinder example that does this?
Nathan Wells
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
&g
As I was developing this morning, I came across a trade-off that I
wasn't happy with. Namely, as I create handlers and other interface
implementations in a given class, the implementations create new
classes, which adds additional, unnecessary code into the compiled
output.
One way around this is
Thanks Ray, that's comforting to hear, after having built an application on
the assumption that IsSerializable is a recommended way to do gwt-rpc. Not
that it would be a huge problem... just probably a day of refactoring and
adding @SupressWarning annotations.
Thanks again :)
Nathan Wells
Could someone please update the article at
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_Server.html#Does_the_GWT_RPC_system_support_the_use_of_java.io.Serializable
to indicate that IsSerializable is deprecated (or de facto deprecated,
or will be deprecated, or whatever)? When I read this articl
Am I to understand that IsSerializable will be deprecated, possibly
for removal in 2.0 or 3.0?
On Sep 9, 7:35 am, Ray Ryan wrote:
> +1
>
> I'm sure teams are using it for the only-GWT-serializable use. John,
> can you file an issue to remind us to de-depracate it rather than
> delete? I'm not at
yeah, that looks nice...
On Aug 13, 9:35 pm, Gary Miller wrote:
> You might find this interesting, kind of related.
>
> Generalized RPC for server-enhanced
> objectshttp://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse...
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
htt
would definitely get behind
anything that allows me to avoid the DTO ugliness I'm looking at now.
Nathan Wells
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:16 AM, John Tamplin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Nathan Wells wrote:
>
>> I've been experimenting with GWT.isClient() and GW
@Gary,
I've heard about the problems, but haven't experienced them myself. Is
there anything specific I should know about?
@Fred,
I've been experimenting with GWT.isClient() and GWT.isScript(), but to
no avail. Thus far I've only tried it in hosted mode with 1.7... is
there something I'm missin
Gary,
You're quite right that the API I'm referring to is nonexistent. My
point was that what your suggesting seems to be a replacement for GWT-
RPC and the compiler. I think the compiler and RPC are great as
engines. I would just like to not have to build my own steering wheel
every time I use t
Gary,
I'm really much more concerned about the API itself, rather than the
implementation details. That being said, I like the look of json
marshaller.
On Aug 11, 7:01 pm, Gary Miller wrote:
> I agree the problem is begging out for a more elegant solution.
> From the Google IO presentation on G
is to use super-src so that you in fact have two
> implementations of your class, one for the client, one for the server.
>
> I realize neither quite hits the sweet spot you're looking for, but may help
> you in a pragmatic sense.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug
r the client, one for the server.
>
> I realize neither quite hits the sweet spot you're looking for, but may help
> you in a pragmatic sense.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Nathan Wells wrote:
>
> > I have hesitated to bring this up,
t models to the client (i.e.
> because it seems likely on average there would be way too much wasted data
> transferred, which would lead to slowness). Clearly, you see that issue,
> too, based on your suggestion.
> How well would the "transient" keyword or the @GwtTransient an
I have hesitated to bring this up, since I'm relatively new to GWT,
and I would hate to waste anyone's time with explaining what is
hopefully common knowledge to me.
Specifically, I thinking about the DTO problem. I think the general
opinion about DTOs is that they are a necessary evil when worki
33 matches
Mail list logo
