On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > One more question for Patrick: would you be better able to use > AbstractActivity if the IsActivity interface were available?
I don't want to speak for anybody else but not to me no. What AbstractActivity provides is so little that it's either sufficient or not. In my case, it's not. Introducing IsActivity doesn't make it any more useful to me. For list and edit, you can edit, so we need to take charge of all the Activity entry point in order to provide the user with a message about discarding changes. For details, it's fine, but it hasn't really saved us much now has it? I'm just surprised that you would want to make it an abstract class. If we were to re-live the gwt 2.1.0 development cycle, I would have to say that the activity package of classes was one of the most volatile out there. Why? Because making an activity that is both useful and generic for everyone out there is extremely hard and complex. AbstractActivity is certainly generic enough for everyone but how useful is it in its current implementation? If you want to improve on that, great, but how much experimentation would be involved in such a process? I'm just saying that anything added to an abstract Activity that works for all GWT users/applications would have to be out of this world crazy good or be benign like it currently is. That being said, I don't know what new additions you're planning. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
