Good question - lol.
I think maybe we're not quite using the same terminology - maybe we
are.
By inner class I mean something like ...
public MyOuterClass
{
}
On Aug 23, 1:34 am, Jan Ehrhardt <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's common practice to use inner classes in Java for listeners or other
> simple things like callbacks.
> What you want to do in the case of a callback, is invoking a method after
> the the asynchronous RPC has been finished. The easiest solution would be,
> to put this method as an argument to the RPC method, but since Java has no
> closures, using inner classes is a nice solution. In Java 1.4, where no
> inner classes where available, people implemented the AsyncCallback
> interface in the class, which was calling the RPC method, so they could do
> something like:
>
> service.getSomthing(this);
>
> But with Java 5 inner classes have become the prefered way.
> Sure, you can also create your own class for this, but that's the worse
> practice, I think.
>
> What would be the best solution for this, you think?
>
> Regards
> Jan Ehrhardt
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 10:43 PM, jack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In every RPC example I've seen, AsyncCallback are all defined inline?
> > Why is this so? What are the advantages?
>
> > Thanks in advance
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
