On 26 nov, 14:40, Raphael André Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > just a simple best-practise question. > > We are using GWT 2.1, mappers, activities and views. Everything works nicely. > > But sometimes we want to use activities (aka presenters) and views > without a mapper. We could switch from an activity back to good old > presenter and a custom view interface that exposes eg. "Widget > asWidget()" or so. > > But we could also stick to activities and their start(...) method. Of > course the activity would not be managed and would have no life cycle. > On the other hand it would be only a single programming model and we > would not need to define our own view interface.
I don't understand that last bit. Activities don't define any "view interface" (Activity != MVP, contrary to what the doc says); any Widget implements IsWidget. > Does anybody have an advice how to handle that "best"? If you go with the "Activity model", developers will expect their life- cycle to be respected, which means adding tests that your "container" is not breaking it. If you don't use Activity, it'll be clear for the developer that the life-cycle is different. Other than the life-cycle though, I can't find any difference between the two approaches. -- 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.
