Sorry. I thought you were looking for other solutions for handling table data.
I can't explain why you have examples with two dimensional Object arrays. I don't use them myself and I have not seen them advocated under these circumstances. On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:02 PM, JamesD<[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay, but that doesn't explain why all the code I've seen has this > same construct for mapping column and row data: Object[][] ? Is it > something to do with js and the compiled java code, or am I wrong and > there really aren't any issues with any of the widgets and their > associated events that this construct works fine in all cases and an > more OOP approach isn't needed? > > The person that originally brought this issue up where I work is no > longer there, so I don't know if my original assumption is correct and > I can't believe the google guys would throw out example code of a > construct that really wasn't good or relevant in a working > environment. As I said I'm still new to GWT and I don't want to waste > time coding a solution to handle a situation to cover a potential > problem that doesn't exist and is handled fine with the code examples > I've seen. > > Thanks, > James > > On Jul 31, 1:39 pm, Isaac Truett <[email protected]> wrote: >> James, >> >> You might find that the PagingScrollTable in the GWT Incubator >> projects fits your OO sensibilities a little better. Look for the one >> in the gen2 package, not the deprecated version in widgetideas. >> >> http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/ >> >> Hope that helps, >> Isaac >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:46 PM, James<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hello All, >> > I'm very new to GWT (we are using 1.6) and I'm seeing a lot of code >> > with a two dimension object array construct for column and row data >> > for flextables: Object[][]. I've done resultset data to jsp >> > conversions in the past and I've always used typed column objects as a >> > more OOP approach to structure the data versus what I'm seeing. Is >> > this really a best practice and if not what is the preferred structure >> > or am I wrong and this is it? >> >> > Thanks, >> >JamesD > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
