I took a slightly different approach to option 1. I created a interfaces that describe the Animal and made both the DTO and GWT implement the interfaces. This lets me control the dependencies and ended up cutting down on the amount data I needed to send to the browser. I'm actually referring to a scheduling application but to keep the Animal analogy I found that the majority of components only needed to know the animal's species and age, not every detail that was in the object.
On Jun 29, 12:34 am, Dalla <[email protected]> wrote: > You would have to do it either like you suggested; create two separate > classes, > one "persistence" class, and then one DTO class. > > Or you could create just a POJO and keep the persistence info in a > separate mapping file. > > From what I understand, most tend to go with the first option. > > On 28 Juni, 14:09, Ben Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Let's say I want to persist Animal objects using JDO and also want to > > return these Animal objects via a GWT RPC service. From what I > > understand GWT will compile a version of Animal in javascript on the > > client. And I take it that any JDO persistence stuff shouldn't be > > going down to the client. > > > So do I have to create two separate classes for my Animal type: one > > used on the server for persistence via JDO and another which the > > client uses over RPC. Is this the normal thing to do? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
