On 23 mai, 06:23, Unni Panicker <o4tec...@gmail.com> wrote: > The way I interpreted this(the stock watcher demo approach) is that the > classes used to transfer data are, by virtue of them being in the remote > service, available to client and server. > You do not need to do anything special. However if you have a utility, > validation or some sort of common functionality between client and server, > that is where the shared comes in.
I for one put services in a "shared" package. It might be that in the stock watcher sample they considered RPC to be "a client dependency/ constraint that the server has to fulfill" (to be able to communicate with the client app), hence the "client" package; whereas "shared" is used for "shared code" that could be (re)used in other apps, including server-side with no GWT involved, or GWT with no Java involved on the server-side. > Since the remote service interface is under client, it is a good place for > data objects as well. Adding them to the shared directory may not buy us > anything. However I cannot see any downside either. > In a Swing-EJB application some folks consider data objects to be a part of > business layer or part of server side, others package as a "common" layer > and hence package as a third one; neither client nor server. I see this as a > matter of personal preference. I keep my data objects under client. Yep: no downside, personal preference only (and enterprise/team coding guidelines). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
