yeah, that looks nice...
On Aug 13, 9:35 pm, Gary Miller miller.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
You might find this interesting, kind of related.
Generalized RPC for server-enhanced
objectshttp://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse...
@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
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Nathan Wells nwwe...@gmail.com wrote:
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 missing?
isClient/isScript isn't going to let you include
@John,
Thanks for the explanation. At this point, it seems like I might as well
write my DTOs and mappings.
@Google Devs
So, I kind of feel unsure about where we're at right now... are there
discussions happening? Has an executive decision been made? I'm don't want
to seem impatient (I know you
You might find this interesting, kind of related.
Generalized RPC for server-enhanced objects
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/1264556bab0906b6
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
Nathan,
I think we are getting to the point of violent agreement ;-)
In my book there is no other way to build web application then GWT.
GWT-RPC is incomplete or at least feels like it could be more
powerful.
And yes if the project called for it I would replace or enhance GWT-
RPC.
This doesn't
There's sometimes an important difference between the kind of object model
that is appropriate to send to the client and one you'd use on the server.
That's the reason we haven't historically tried to make it easier to do
no-brainer sharing of server-side object models to the client (i.e.
because
There's sometimes an important difference between the kind of object model
that is appropriate to send to the client and one you'd use on the server.
I absolutely agree with you here. And if I fully understand the
current reasoning, DTO creation is a way of forcing developers to
include as
Nathan,
To some extent you can make this happen by wrapping your method
implementations with GWT.isScript() or GWT.isClient() calls as appropriate.
Another approach 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
Fred,
If I understand you correctly, if I have a method
void doFoo() {
if (!(GWT.isClient() || GWT.isScript())){
//do server-side stuff with breaking JRE references
}
}//doFoo
... the compiler will ignore everything after the conditional. Is that
accurate?
On Aug 11, 2:13 pm, Fred
Also, I don't know much about super-src. Can you point me to some
documentation about that? Everything I've read says do X and this
will happen I would like to have an understanding (superficial as my
understanding is probably going to be) of what going on under the
hood so that I know better
I agree the problem is begging out for a more elegant solution.
From the Google IO presentation on Google Wave powered by GWT a
solution using proto buffer and JSON instead of GWT RPC is mentioned.
I've been thinking that a similar result could be achieved annotation
the server side object model
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 miller.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree the problem is begging out for a more elegant solution.
From the Google
Nathan,
I'm not quite sure which API you are referring too. As there isn't an
API for DTOs.
My interpritation of Fred's post presents alternate ways of
implementing DTO.
If the Wave protobuffer mechanism was publicly available it would be a
great alternative to hand coded DTOs.
An annotation
@Gary
I have not seen the GoogleIo vid, why do you say wave uses json AND
protocol buffers to talk between client - server...?
On 12/08/2009, at 11:01 AM, Gary Miller miller.ga...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree the problem is begging out for a more elegant solution.
From the Google IO
16 matches
Mail list logo
