[+gwt-c] ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Accordingly, HasValue should only ever be used for simple leaf types on leaf widgets. I think I object to issue with this statement, but first I'd like to see a definition of "leaf" types and widgets. By leaf type, I assume you mean primitive wrapper classes and String, but why is Date thrown in there? Why would DatePicker implements HasValue<Date> be acceptable but not PersonPicker implements HasValue<Person>? What's to be gained by discouraging HasValue for complex data types? On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Emily Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To give you an idea of where I am coming from, here is my understanding of > the world: > > *Metadata Systems, comprising Models and Controllers* > xforms, Ian's databinding system, Arthur's validation system, gwt team's > upcoming proposal for data management: > > All part of the larger metadata, binding, code generation class of systems. > Hopefully all of these can eventually use the same basic concepts and it > going to be a huge undertaking to get it right. In fact, so huge of one that > the gwt team has decided to duck for now and are trying very hard not to get > involved in these discusions at the current time. > > > *Widget bridge classes, part of the application's view.* > Classes used to expose the application's view to the meta data systems. > > *HasValue*: Provides the bridge between the metadata model and the world > of widgets. From the meta data system's point of view it has some way of > creating/linking with instances of HasValue<String>, HasValue<Boolean>, > HasValue<Date>, etc.. > > From the widgets point of view, we have a whole bunch of text boxes, text > areas, date pickers, etc. on the page. > > Accordingly, HasValue should only ever be used for simple leaf types on > leaf widgets. > > *EventHandlers*: Provides a way for the meta data system controllers to > add callbacks to react to widget changes. > > > >> >> -Ray >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Ray Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > We all seem to be talking about data binding and validation a lot, and >> some >> > of us are even implementing code about it. We on the GWT team hear the >> need >> > and feel it ourselves. >> > >> > We have some notions of how we'd like to tackle this in a way that >> blends >> > seamlessly with the rest of GWT, and are looking to start design and >> > implementation in earnest before the year is out. This makes it unlikely >> > that we'll accept core or incubator patches that implement such a >> system. >> > That said, we don't want to shoot down the excellent work that's being >> done! >> > If you have a system that's shaping up to meet your needs and that you >> want >> > to share with the GWT community, please do! Set up a Google Code >> project, >> > announce it here, embarrass us by shipping first and attracting a user >> > base. We'll probably steal from you shamelessly and ask for your help as >> our >> > own system takes shape. >> > I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers, and that you'll understand why >> we >> > haven't been as responsive on some of these threads as we should have >> been. >> > Thanks, >> > rjrjr >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > > -- > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand > binary, and those who don't" > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
