More info on my number 3 comment.
I just saw a comment from Philippe saying that mixing activity and place is
discouraged for the moment. Comming from what I say in one, I think this
comment will be more appropriate for future release :D
Cheers,
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Christian Goudreau <
goudreau.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to answer some of your concern :D
>
> 1- We want to introduce and follow every release of Gwt. We already
> introduced Gwt's evenbus instead of using ours and there's more changes on
> the way. That's a long term engagement, even our contributor guideline
> follows gwt.
> 2- You don't like the proxy's magic ? You can create them :D Proxy are used
> for lasy instantiation of presenters and to facilitate code splitting while
> keeping everything decoupled.
> 3- There's some way to do that with gwtp (PresenterWidget, proxy events).
> But there's no reason to only use Gwtp, even though we encourage it. I
> think that activity manager can become handy for cases that we don't fully
> support yet.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Nicolas Antoniazzi <
> nicolas.antonia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Phillipe.
>> i am going to try "ProviderBundle".
>>
>> I tried to migrate my application to gwtp just before the 2.1 release but
>> I reverted my changes for 3 reasons :
>>
>> 1 - I prefer to not depend too much on an external framework. I love all
>> new things that come in every new release of gwt and I am afraid that
>> frameworks become unsupported or do not follow new features. I had the
>> exemple of a friend who has prefered to use GXT instead of Pure GWT, and
>> today, he cannot use UiBinder or the new Handler mechanism. He is still
>> using the old listener way.
>> Today, GWT has released the new Activity ~ MVP part, with their own Place
>> system. At the moment, MVP of GWT seems less powerfull than the GWTP's one,
>> but the syntax is different. And tomorrow, maybe that directions will be
>> more different. So I prefer not taking the risk to have a situation like
>> with GXT.
>>
>> 2 - Declaration of Presenter / View looks too much complicated to me (but
>> it is a pure subjective vision :) ).
>> All the generation of ProxyPlace are too magical for me or not enough...
>> By instance, The automatic generation of a Place is something interesting,
>> but in the same time, it is too complicated to generate. I do not like the
>> fact to have to declare an interface which extends ProxyPlace, and
>> references it in a type litteral. I would have prefered to just have
>> something like :
>>
>> @Place("login");
>> @RunAsync
>> public class LoginActivity implement GwtpActivity<LoginActivity.Presenter>
>>
>> public inteface Presenter {
>> public void onLogin();
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> or something similar.
>> Today I prefer to stay on a manual code for this part instead of a "half
>> generation" that is (in my opinion) too complicated to declare.
>> Finally (for the code style part), I did not like the fact that we have to
>> use a local Widget variable in View and returns it with a asWidget() method
>> for UiBinder Views.
>> Today with GWT 2.1, all widgets implements IsWidget and provides a
>> asWidget(). But since we have to store a local instance of Widget inside of
>> view for UiBinder, it cannot be done automatically, we have to override it.
>> However, I understand that IsWidget was not ready when you first
>> implemented it. But today, it does not solve the problem of the local Widget
>> variable.
>>
>> 3 - My application has two top div. One called "root" for the main part of
>> my application, and one called "overlay" for all elements that comes like a
>> filter over my root elements (to display overlay help, ...). They have both
>> some css declaration on them.
>> I did not find any way to reuse this system with GWTP. GWTP come with a
>> RootPresenter and I wanted to use a second RootPresenter plugged on overlay
>> div but it is not possible.
>> ActivityManager are more flexible for this, they have a setDisplay()
>> method to setup the top element to use.
>>
>> Well, Phillipe, all those things are just my personal feelings for my
>> specifical needs. I think that GWTP is a great framework for a lot of
>> people.
>> Unfortunatly, in my case, I had to fight against it (maybe that it was a
>> design problem, but I am not sure), and there was all the more subjective
>> aspects (abouts framework overlay and code style) that made me go away.
>>
>> In any case, Phillipe and Christian, thanks for your great work .
>> I am going to try ProviderBundle, maybe that I will be more comfortable
>> with it :)
>>
>> Nicolas.
>>
>> 2010/11/7 PhilBeaudoin <philippe.beaud...@gmail.com>
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> If you start using AsyncProvider, you might be interested in GWTP's
>>> ProviderBundle at some point. The problem of AsyncProvider is that it
>>> may introduce too many split points, and you will often want to do
>>> some manual optimization and group a few things together behind the
>>> same split point. ProviderBundle makes that really easy to do.
>>>
>>> ProviderBundle is totally usable without the rest of GWTP. (Although
>>> I'd love to hear your reason for not using it. ;))
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Philippe
>>>
>>> On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Nicolas Antoniazzi <nicolas.antonia...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Thanks Thomas, I implemented something similar to what you said (I
>>> think)
>>> > and it works fine ! All my activities are code splitted "automatically"
>>> now.
>>> >
>>> > I used the AsyncProvider<T>.
>>> > I used a gin version compiled by gwtp team that include the AsyncProxy
>>> > (althouth that I do not use gwtp for severals resons, thanks to gwtp
>>> dev for
>>> > this :) ) .
>>> >
>>> > @Ashton, you can get it from here :
>>> http://code.google.com/p/gwt-platform/http://code.google.com/p/gwt-platform/downloads/detail?name=gin-r137.jar
>>> >
>>> > The usage of AsyncProvider<T> is very simple. It's exactly like a
>>> normal
>>> > Provider<T> instead that you have to give an AsyncCallback to the get()
>>> > method.
>>> > example :
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<MyClass> myProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > AsyncProvider<MyClass> myAsyncProvider;
>>> >
>>> > private MyClass instance1;
>>> > private MyClass instance2;
>>> >
>>> > public void myMethod() {
>>> > // To get an instance without code splitting
>>> > instance1 = myProvider.get();
>>> >
>>> > // To get an instance with code splitting
>>> > myAsyncProvider.get(new AsyncCallback<MyClass>() {
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onSuccess(MyClass result) {
>>> > instance2 = result;
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > In the previous example, instance1 is instanciated without code
>>> splitting,
>>> > instance2 with code splitting.
>>> > This is just a small example to show you the syntax. This example is
>>> very
>>> > stupid since if you declare a class with a class Provider<MyClass> in
>>> the
>>> > same file than an AsyncProvider<MyClass>, MyClass code will not be code
>>> > splitted.
>>> >
>>> > Now, just for people who would like to know how to implement an
>>> > ActivityAsyncProxy, my implementation looks like this : (And it might
>>> really
>>> > not be the best one. Thomas, maybe that you have a better code to share
>>> ;) )
>>> >
>>> > public class ActivityAsyncProxy<T> implements Activity {
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > private AsyncProvider<T> provider;
>>> > private boolean canceled = false;
>>> > private Activity impl;
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public String mayStop() {
>>> > if (impl != null) return impl.mayStop();
>>> > return null;
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onCancel() {
>>> > if (impl != null) {
>>> > impl.onCancel();} else {
>>> > canceled = true;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onStop() {
>>> > if (impl != null) {
>>> > impl.onStop();
>>> > } else {
>>> > canceled = true;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void start(final AcceptsOneWidget panel, final EventBus
>>> eventBus) {
>>> > provider.get(new AsyncCallback<T>() {
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onSuccess(T result) {
>>> > // Do not starts loaded activity if it has been canceled
>>> > if (!canceled) {
>>> > impl = (Activity) result;
>>> > impl.start(panel, eventBus);}
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
>>> > // TODO : send error message
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > });
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Now, in my ActivityMapper :
>>> >
>>> > public class RootActivityMapper implements ActivityMapper {
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<ActivityAsyncProxy<LoginActivity>> loginActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<ActivityAsyncProxy<ProfileActivity>> profileActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<ActivityAsyncProxy<PrivacyActivity>> privacyActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public Activity getActivity(Place place) {
>>> > if (place instanceof LoginPlace) return loginActivityProvider.get();
>>> > if (place instanceof ProfilePlace) return
>>> profileActivityProvider.get();
>>> > if (place instanceof PrivacyPlace) return
>>> privacyActivityProvider.get();
>>> >
>>> > return null;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > And that's all.
>>> >
>>> > Well, Just for information, I created my custom provider for
>>> > ActivityAsyncProxy :
>>> >
>>> > public class ActivityAsyncProxyProvider<T extends Activity> implements
>>> > Provider<ActivityAsyncProxy<T>> {
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > Provider<ActivityProxy<T>> provider;
>>> >
>>> > @Override
>>> > public ActivityAsyncProxy<T> get() {
>>> > return provider.get();
>>> >
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > Now, in my ActivityMapper, injection are less verbose :
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > ActivityAsyncProxyProvider<LoginActivity> loginActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > ActivityAsyncProxyProvider<ProfileActivity> profileActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > @Inject
>>> > ActivityAsyncProxyProvider<PrivacyActivity> privacyActivityProvider;
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Thomas, you helped me a lot this week with all your tips ! :)
>>> >
>>> > Nicolas
>>> >
>>> > 2010/11/6 Ashton Thomas <attechserv...@gmail.com>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Does anyone have some words for implementing the AsyncProvider<T>
>>> > > (Still in trunk as Thomas points out)??
>>> >
>>> > > I have not see any code showing how to implement this so I am a
>>> little
>>> > > lost on where to start.
>>> >
>>> > > How do we need to use AsyncProvider and what else needs to be change
>>> /
>>> > > restructure anything?
>>> >
>>> > > Is the AsyncProvider even usable right now if we compile from source?
>>> >
>>> > > On Nov 6, 9:27 am, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > On 6 nov, 01:24, Nicolas Antoniazzi <nicolas.antonia...@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > > > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > > > > I am trying to use CodeSplitting with Activites on 2.1.
>>> > > > > I read this very interresting threadhttp://
>>> > > code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5129and
>>> > > > > T.Broyer says that the best approach is to use an AsyncProxy for
>>> > > Activities.
>>> >
>>> > > > I certainly didn't say it's the best approach (just that Jarod's
>>> code
>>> > > > wasn't adding anything to AsyncProxy).
>>> >
>>> > > > > It makes sense but I have problem with it since my "Activities"
>>> are
>>> > > binded
>>> > > > > with Gin. AsyncProxy uses GWT.create() to instantiate the
>>> concrete
>>> > > types and
>>> > > > > all my @Inject in my Activities are thus not initialized.
>>> >
>>> > > > That's probably the reason why GIN added AsyncProvider<?>s
>>> > > > (unfortunately not released yet)
>>> >
>>> > > > > Does anyone tried to mix new Activity concepts with "Code
>>> Splitting" ?
>>> > > And
>>> > > > > do you know if it could be compatible with "Gin activities" ?
>>> >
>>> > > > I started coding the ActivityAsyncProxy I talked about in the issue
>>> > > > tracker (i.e. don't even call start() on the activity if it's
>>> > > > cancelled before being "downloaded"), but haven't yet tried it. I
>>> > > > think (read: I *suppose*) that for it to work with GIN, your
>>> concrete
>>> > > > implementations would have to use GIN's AsyncProvider, or get the
>>> > > > Activity from the Ginjector from within a GWT.runAsync.
>>> >
>>> > > --
>>> > > 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<google-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com><google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs
>>> cr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> > > .
>>> > > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > >http://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 google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://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 google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Christian Goudreau
> www.arcbees.com
>
>
--
Christian Goudreau
www.arcbees.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 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.
