Le 7 janv. 2012 22:30, "John Tamplin" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> That's it. I'd probably call the client class JsoTypedArray so it's >> harder to mix it up with shared.TypedArray (particularly when you use >> facilities provided by your IDE to automatically insert the 'import' >> clauses). Also, giving the client class a slightly uglier name is an >> incentive to rather code against the interface: the implementation class >> is a detail. > > > I disagree -- with this approach, I can't write shared code that creates an ArrayBuffer/etc.
Well, not if you use a factory: either an abstract factory as Wave does (much easier if you use DI though), or a static one with a super-source version. But I might very well be missing something here. > Let me get my proof of concept code uploaded and show you what I am thinking of. I'm eagerly waiting for it ;-) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
