Thanks Daniel for detailed post about GWT-RPC. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Daniel Kurka <[email protected]> wrote:
> I summed up what I think about GWT RPC and it's future here: > http://blog.daniel-kurka.de/2016/07/gwt-rpcs-future.html > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:01 AM JonL <[email protected]> wrote: > >> While I agree that it could theoretically work with annotations, >> annotations require access to code, so for things you have no control over, >> you either would need to implement custom serialization anyways, or use the >> GWT serialization. >> >> I personally think there are optimizations to be had in the serialization >> policy generator that would prevent that whole classpath rescan issue, but >> I haven't had a chance to look into the code. >> >> If we were to use annotations, I think it would be better to use >> annotations on the RPC mechanism. >> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:23:19 AM UTC-7, Thomas Broyer wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:53:20 PM UTC+2, Paul Robinson wrote: >>> >> >>>> On 13 Jul 2016 9:17 a.m., "Kay Pac" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Will the gwt serialization mechanism used in GWT-RPC remain? GWT >>>> object serialization has been plugged into the atmosphere (realtime >>>> communication/websockets) GWT extension. It would be useful to know if we >>>> should migrate away from the GWT serialization and towards JSON. >>>> >>>> It's the serialisation that's the problem, so it will be gone in 3.0. >>>> JSON is a good choice. (I'm moving that way) >>>> >>> >>> The actual problem is not serialization per se, it is that the RPC >>> generator scans the whole classpath for subclasses of transferred classes >>> to generate their specific ser/deser code (taking into account their >>> CustomFieldSerializer if one exists). >>> RPC (thus probably Atmosphere) could be made to work (as annotation >>> processors) if they use another mechanism to determine what can be >>> transferred (e.g. annotations similar to RequestFactory's @ExtraTypes). >>> I believe Daniel Kurka said something along those lines a year ago when >>> first talking about those changes. The logical next question is: is there >>> anyone willing to make those changes and continue to maintain GWT-RPC? The >>> answer seemed to be (have been?) "at least that won't be Google", and this >>> is why people start to "panic". That does not mean RPC will be gone (that >>> doesn't mean it'll still be there either). >>> But let's concentrate on 2.8 for now. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "GWT Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
