Following an off-group discussion with Marius, he suggested that I comment back on this thread regarding the fear of many gwt-platform users and developers that the GWT MVP approach is too tightly linked to SpringRoo and the idea that it can generate a lot of boilerplate automatically. Do you think this apprehension is grounded, or that GWT's MVP can lead to lean code even when written manually?
Cheers, Philippe On Jul 9, 1:25 pm, Philippe Beaudoin <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Thomas, > > I'm glad to hear that... It seems like some of these could be > integrated in gwt-platform apps (i.e. Cell-based widgets, maybe even > the RequestFactory). I wish I had more time to look into this. > > Philippe > > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9 juil, 11:31, "marius.andreiana" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Hi GWT developers, > > >> There are some concerns on 2.1MVPapproach, which have been raised > >> herehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit/browse_thread/threa... > >> and > >> herehttp://groups.google.com/group/gwt-platform/browse_thread/thread/862c... > > >> To summarize, here are some quotes: > >> * It's extremely fast to build an initial scaffold (CRUD for all > >> entities), but I'm not sure how easy it is to customize it for real > >> world usage > >> * When skimming the generated sources I saw A LOT of artifacts, which > >> I don't feel comfortable with because it means that although > >> "officially" my code is not coupled with Roo, if I were to drop it I > >> would have to manage all these generated artifacts myself. > >> * This expenses example is a nightmare to follow. The bindings/ > >> wiring of all the pieces both client and server is nuts. > >> * In M2, things have been cleaned up a bit > > >> I'm just trying to make sure the finalMVPimplementation will be > >> usable without Roo and without automatic code generation, and will be > >> at least as easy to use and understand > >> ashttp://code.google.com/p/gwt-platform/ > >> . Otherwise, should it be left as a separate project rather than > >> default GWT approach? > >> What do others, more knowledgeable persons than me, think? > > > I really do not approach the different features of 2.1 as a whole > > "MVP" set of things: there's > > - RequestFactory and ValueStore (I don't think ValueStore has any > > real use besides RequestFactory, though I'd be happy to be proved > > wrong) for a record-oriented client-server communication; > > - Cell-based widgets for efficient data-backed lists, trees and > > tables > > - PlaceController as typed layer over History (objects rather than > > strings, even though it's not yet plumbed to History, which at least > > proves it can be used without it) > > - ActivityManager as an "application controller" (to use the term > > from the GWT tutorials) on top of PlaceController > > - and on top of that, GWT provides some base activities plumbed with > > RequestFactory > > - and finally, though it's not documented at all, EditorSupport which > > works with UiBinder in a view to generate "data-binding code" (as far > > as I understood) > > > You're free to use any of them independently of the others. > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. -- 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.
