On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ray Cromwell <cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote: > My only criticism of this design is that it only captures a part of the use > cases where the transport mechanism needs override. That is, it helps in > cases where one is making HTTP requests, and needs to modify HTTP request > parameters or the body, but it leaves out the cases where one can't make > direct requests (using XHR). The RequestBuilder stuff is very tightly bound > to XHR.
It would be possible (if baroque) with this API to substitute in a "ScriptTagRequestBuilder" implementation in the doCreate() method. I'll make the unsubstantiated claim that non-XHR transport is a small enough portion of the user-base to avoid complicating the client-side API as long as you can make that non-XHR transport look like XHR by creating a RequestBuilder subclass. -- Bob Vawter Google Web Toolkit Team --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
