> > I don't see why this is a problem; he has to parse it when he submits > > the request in the first place, and/or when he connects to the global > > queue after starting up, so the code is only slightly different for > > updating it. > > Just for the records: the difference is that in the first time we see > a PersistentBlah we create a new object for it in our client list. If > we see it a second time, then we have to compare our own values > against the values in the second PersistentBlah and figure out IF and > WHAT changed. If nothing changed then we don't have to update the gui > item (which is expensive, redraw, ...). A ModifiedPersistentRequest > could be applied without further checks, because something really > changed. > I don't know how it's implemented in Frost, but in Thaw, having all the value given again would not be a problem: Thaw would just update all its values according to the ones given in the message., and then do a refresh of the corresponding row in its JTable (redraw a row in a JTable is not *so* expensive). So there is no need for Thaw to compare something, and so in the end, both solutions are the same for me. (Yes, I know, this answer probably helps you a lot :)
> > At the end this would allow to handle each PersistentBlah as > > introduction for new items. > > > > But this was just for the records, we need a decision. Because I can't > > add further details to my point of view to convince you I tend to > > implement what you proposed, because its 'your' code :) > > Input from other client authors would be useful. Jflesh? > Jfles*c*h :)
