Hi Marcelo, You could also put null or undefined checks in your overlay type methods so that whenever the object the JSO represents is only partially filled, calling on those potentially undefined properties will return something elegant back to your GWT code that could be interpreted and handled.
Hope that helps, -Sumit Chandel On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jeff Chimene <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09/06/2009 03:02 PM, Marcelo Sena wrote: > > > > Yes I have but I don't see how I could use it to send or receive > > portions of an object, like, now the key, now an email, now a name > > etc. I don't see how it could help when handling portions of an > > object. Is that possible? > > I'm going assume you mean data structures like > { "key": 1234} or {"email" : "[email protected]"} > > You're right in the sense that JSO types seem designed for "complete" > objects, as opposed to object fragments. > > AFAIK, a reference for a "complete" object that resembles > > {"server":{"id":2,"name":"fred"}} > > might look like: > > public final native String getName() /*-{ > return this.server.name; > }-*/; > > For objects that are the subject of this thread, I think you get by with: > > public final native String getEMail() /*-{ > return this.email; > }-*/; > > All of the above examples go into a JSO type class declaration > > public class UserInfo extends JavaScriptObject { > protected UserInfo() {} > } > > but the email example does not reference the class object like the > server name does. > > I think one potential problem you'll have with this implementation is > that you might find yourself with an annoying run-time error when the > current JSO does not have a member named "key" (or "email"), yet you > execute a code sequence that assumes the current object does have a > member named "key". This error is difficult to cause when using > "complete" JS objects. > > This will be a difficult error to track down, since it will be dependent > on a particular operation sequence. > > > > > On Sep 6, 6:31 pm, Jeff Chimene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/06/2009 10:51 AM, Marcelo Sena wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Really why not? > >>> It was my first thought. You guys(developers at GWT) have probably > >>> created some sort of HashMap to handle JSON objects received from RPC > >>> calls handling its values and strings. > >>> Anyway, I find the standard way of handling JSON values quite... ugly. > >>> Is there any reason why shouldn't I use a process like: > >>> 1- Get string form the wire. > >>> 2- Use regex to get the name and values. > >>> 3- Fill a Map with the values from step 2. > >>> 4- Get the values that I want from the Map. > >> > >>> Thanks in advance. > >> > >> Have you looked at the Javascript Overlay type? It's quite efficient. > >> I'm guessing it's more efficient than using a Map. > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/DevGuideCodingBasics.html#D... > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
