On Wednesday, December 8, 2010 8:22:39 PM UTC+1, John A. Tamplin wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: Basically we don't know exactly how we want to change the thing, but have a feeling something will be needed. Re: composition or delegation, it always happens, but I'm not sure that's a concrete issue yet. We could introduce an IsActivity interface, but I don't see anywhere in the current GWT code we would actually call it. People implement their own ActivityMappers by hand, so they could use that convention themselves.
Sounds like there aren't super strong feelings on this, so today for 2.1.1 I'm inclined to - drop the interface - rename AbstractActivity to Activity - document as being forbidden from developing any non-trivial behavior - and perhaps document the intent to retroactively introduce an interface when it's had a chance to settle Last passionate objections? I still feel like there is little cost in having the interface, which is what is used in the API, and a default implementation where any new methods added will get default behavior. Then document that if you implement the interface but don't extend the default implementation, you will be broken by future updates. That lets users decide whether they care more about not being broken by updates or more about not having to extend a base class. +1 Though I'm OK with the proposed (abstract)Activity and SimpleActivity (i.e. just make Activity an abstract class rather than an interface –with all methods being abstract– and rename AbstractActivity into SimpleActivity, rather than just renaming the current AbstractActivity to Activity, with the no-op methods) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
