This is nothing to do with Roo. And while we want to be Gin friendly, we can't count on people using Gin.
It's a constructor argument because the activity is intended to be single use, and it is not viable without something to edit. I'm really not inclined to change the api around the current state of Gin's feature set. If I were trying to get Gin to cooperate with this kind of situation I'd make myself a factory that takes the edited record as an input and returns an activity, and put Gin in charge of instantiating the factories. Is that not practical? rjrjr On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Patrick Julien <pjul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any specific reason for AbstractRecordEditActivity having > some kind of id in its constructor? > > I'm asking because we're very heavy Gin users and Gin 1 doesn't > support assisted injections. The gin trunk does, but even then, I > still find it annoying to provide this variable in the constructor > considering the record, or id, isn't of any value to the activity > until that activity is started. > > The only thing I can think of is that this is all Roo based now so Gin > isn't part of the solution but auto-generated Roo files are. > > I know this new proxy place stuff carries around a record which is > interesting but I still don't quite understand how to make all > scenarios that we need work with that place class. > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
