> as your framework does probably generate quite some code to make > all these declarative binding features possible
No, actually--the bindings don't have any code generation to them, either build-time or gwt-compile-time. They're pure Java, which means they run in unit tests (it would suck if they didn't...then too much logic/behavior wouldn't be testable). > You only have UiBinder xml and while generating the view > implementation you have no idea what events the developer is > interested in. So you are forced to expose all ui:field > widgets/elements to allow the developer to do something with the > view. Precisely. That is a good thing, IMO. Why is that a bad thing? It means the view is so dumb it doesn't (and *can't*) have any logic in it. (Sorry, feel free to treat that question as rhetorical if you want to drop the Tessell tangent. :-). > So for slightly more complex things you also end up with anonymous classes. Of course. But, speaking from experience, it's surprising how often that is not true. > Button/TextBox available will be really handy for testing. > So for this use case I would go for these Is* interfaces in GWT > proper as they can encourage people to not use full blown MVP for > everything while still being able to write non-hacky tests. Cool. - 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.
