Thanks, David, for clarifying this.

If at any time it may have seemed that I was implying that there was was any
static dependency between Roo or Spring DI and GWT let me say that I know
there isn't. There is, though, an implied dynamic dependency between Roo,
Spring DI & MVP if one wants to synchronize their views and presenters
during development as per the Expenses example project. I say implied
because at this time it appears that the only available option to achieve
this is by using Roo but I am sure that there will be additional options
coming down the pike:).

I am also very pleased to know that there will be improved tooling in the
Eclipse plugin. I spend more time using Eclipse than I do with my family lol
so it is reassuring to know that this will evolve.

Again, thank you.

Jeff

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, David Chandler <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> GWT 2.1 has no dependency on Roo. It is very much our intent that you
> should be able to create GWT apps with or without Roo. The latter offers
> some conveniences for certain types of apps like CRUD apps where you have,
> say, 40 entities, each with corresponding CRUD screens, and a view,
> presenter, RequestContext, DAO, etc. for each. In this example, the need for
> concrete classes per entity ultimately results from the fact that code
> generation (whether via GWT generator or Roo) is GWT's alternative to
> reflection. GWT 2.1 does not require much boilerplate and 2.1.1 will require
> even less. And yes, improved tooling in Google Plugin for Eclipse is
> definitely on radar.
>
> As far as DI is concerned, DI proper is not the cause of cold start latency
> on App Engine, but rather one particular scenario in which singletons are
> created eagerly at startup time. I wrote about this on my personal blog (
> http://turbomanage.wordpress.com) linked above. This should become much
> less of an issue shortly (per
> http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=2456), as it
> appears the GAE team is close to releasing warmup requests, and reserved
> instances are on the roadmap.
>
> Best,
> /dmc
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Jeff Schwartz <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, except that Guice for instance (and I believe JavaEE 6 too, as
>>> it's based on JSR 330, lead by Bob Lee, creator of Guice) does not use
>>> an XML file.
>>>
>>
>> Yes however I was specifically speaking to Spring DI.
>>
>>  Isn't that somehow due to Spring insisting in "everything should be a
>>> singleton" (and eagerly instantiating them)?
>>>
>>
>> I believe so, yes.
>>
>> My concerns aren't with MVP; from what I have read I think MVP is a very
>> good design pattern & I am eager to incorporate it. My concerns are more
>> aligned with the dependency on Roo & STS (which I use for Groovy and for
>> Grails development & which I really like) to accomplish syncing Views &
>> Presenters. I would have preferred a pure Java solution such as relying on
>> the compiler and code refactoring to generate binding code where needed.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>  --
>> 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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Chandler
> Developer Programs Engineer, Google Web Toolkit
> http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/
>
> --
> 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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
>



-- 
Jeff

-- 
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.

Reply via email to