On 24 oct, 14:39, Eduardo Guerrero <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I have been trying out the MVP idea, and these are some points (read,
> doubts) I have come up with.
>
> * I do not like the "HasValue<String> suchAndSuchField" interface;
> it's too "low level" in my opinion, and harder for testing. I have
> been toying with using "String getSuchAndSuchField" and "void
> setSuchAndSuchField(String s)", which I think is more "high level",
> and allows mocking the view more easily.
But HasValue<?> is also a HasValueChangeHandlers. But when I don't
need value change events, I use a getter and setter.
> * I also think that seting the handlers from the Presenter is also
> "low level"; I'd rather have the view set its own handlers, and
> communicate with the presenter by means of callbacks. The view needs
> implement "void setOnClickedLogin(AsyncCallback cb)" and will use the
> callback on its click button handler, or whatever. For example, you
> could call the callback both on blur (whenever you exit the password
> field) or on clicking the login button; the presenter needs just know
> that it's time for validating the login, by using the
> "getSuchAndSuchField(...)" calls.
>
> Any opinions, kudos, flames ... ???
I don't really buy your argument about "low level" vs. "high level". I
see MVP as much more pragmatic and "close to metal" than e.g. MVC;
particularly when using a passive model.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
