https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/Resolver.java File user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/Resolver.java (right):
https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/diff/1/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/Resolver.java#newcode365 user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/server/Resolver.java:365: new IdentityHashMap<BaseProxy, Resolution>(); On 2012/05/27 08:41:35, tbroyer wrote:
On 2012/05/23 01:08:29, rdayal wrote: > Sorry for the long delay on this, but doing a bit of thinking - it
seems
> incorrect to add an empty ValueProxy object to the
clientObjectToResolutionMap
> when there's no representation of it. It seems that items should be
added to
> this list when they're actually resolved (i.e filled in; not empty).
> > Can we come up with a solution that satisfies this? It may require
the
addition > of another "unresolved" List, and then migration over to the map
when items
are > filled in.
I'll have to think more about it...
> Though it's going to add more code, I think the workaround we have
here is a
bit > of a hack. I think it's an elegant hack, but it just feels wrong to
be working
> around ValueProxy.equals(....) because we're trying to add empty
value proxies
> to a "resolved" map when they really haven't been totally resolved
yet.
> > Thoughts?
I really think we _need_ an IdentityHashMap here, whether we add an
"unresolved"
list or not. We want to map proxy instances to their "resolution"
object, we
know we will be modifying the proxies, so a Map that uses equals() is
a mistake:
a) you shouldn't use mutable objects as keys, and b) we don't care
about objects
that compare equal, we want to map a very specific instance (be it an
entity
proxy or value proxy, it really doesn't matter) to a Resolution
object. Your justification to use an IdentityHashMap does make sense. It just strikes me as odd that we're using a Map where the key is mutable (in general, regardless of whether or not this is an IdentityHashMap). It just seems that there must be a better way to do this. I'd be happier if the key was some sort of synthetic ID that was generated at creation time (of the ValueProxy or EntityProxy), and that key mapped to both the resolution object and the proxy object. https://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1646803/ -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
