Very well said, Jason. I agree completely.
On Aug 23, 9:08 am, Jason Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would personally say that creating top-level or inner classes for the
> response of an async
> callback (or an event) is often the best way to do it.
>
> Encapsulation is one of the main reasons we use OO languages because it
> encourages re-use. If you
> take a look at my blog post
> here:http://lemnik.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/a-useful-gwt-rpc-pattern-ive-b...
> You'll see one of the ways in which you can leverage encapsulate logic to
> make your code more
> friendly. Make the RetryAction a Command object and you'll really start to
> see what I mean.
>
> I mostly find that in the long run it works better to avoid inline callbacks,
> since it provides
> better separation of concerns, and acts more like the Command pattern (and
> you can mix in a Command
> Processor to produce more complex logic).
>
> Just my 2c worth.
> Regards.
> //Jason
>
> jack wrote:
> > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
