> Yeah this Type 1 style is really PITA in the long term, especially if > views are a bit more complex.
I disagree; I actually prefer Type 1. Although to each their own, of course. > However, with the release of UiBinder we constantly tell > people/recommend to use the Type 2 style of MVP with UiBinder + > @UiHandler and a delegate interface if they ask for MVP in > gwt-discuss. UiHandler makes inner classes 2 lines shorter, but IMO it still leads to the same spaghetti code (reactive/imperative, instead of declarative). Tessell's binding DSL makes simple/common operations one line declarations (explicitly via Type 1-exposed widget interfaces, not UiHandlers). E.g. I don't see how UiHandlers/Type 2 could be as succinct as: https://github.com/stephenh/todomvc-tessell/blob/master/src/main/java/org/tessell/todomvc/client/app/TodoPresenter.java#L43 > So I think this argument looses some weight as probably no one really > wants to do the type 1 way anymore and only a minority still choose > it for new projects. Well, that is unfortunate, as MVP Type 1 with Tessell's view generation and binding DSL is quite pleasant. But, again, to each their own. :-) > No need for GWTMockUtilities.disarm() or gwtmockito then. Exactly. - Stephen -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
