Thanks mate! Some good info there.
For now, im going to stick with the serialize to file, just because I'm a long way from actually doing something practical with the data, and because i can quickly see what changes I have made. The good thing about RPC implementation is I can just swap out the method for something substantial later on. I guess that was the intention at least. /David On 14 Nov, 00:30, Brett Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > The get and set functions are called getters and setters - they are part of > the javabean specification:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaBean > > I'm guessing the XML library you are using requires java objects to be > defined as javabeans. I've seen a couple other libraries that do that too - > not sure why they work that way. > > For the bigger picture, that all depends on your server setup. If you're > just experimenting, I'd suggest using GWT with Google App Engine, and > storing data via hibernate. Google has a good tutorial for using GWT with > app engine/hibernate. I think a database is almost alwasy easier than > serializing objects to a file. > > To your point about changing your data model: I've found that app engine is > really bad for this. There isn't (I don't think) a simple way to "delete all > objects of this class" out of the box. When I was just experimenting with > app engine, I found it easier to just create new class definitions than > modify existing classes. > > Good luck learning GWT! > Brett > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:38 PM, David Cox <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, i managed to solve my own problem again, but I'm no 100% on how i > > did it. > > > What i did was remove all my functions in the class and then re-added > > them with the "create getter and setter for <private String>" > > > Then i made sure that the variable was set using the actual setter > > function. ie: this.setTitle(Title). > > I also had other function in the class. > > Like myfucntion(String title, int counter) or something like that. > > Origionaly i have stuff like > > this.Title = title. > > > I had to change these to this.setTitle(title). Even though all the > > setTitle function does exaclty: this.title = title. > > For some reason this fixes it. > > > as far as i can tell, the rules for successful xml serialisation as as > > such: > > 1. The each variable you want serialised must have a set command > > called that has the same name with a "set" prefix > > 2. this function must be called at least once or that particular > > variable will not be searilised (once it is called though, you can > > then go back to using direct methods like this.Title = title. ) > > 3. each variable MUST also have a public function wiht the same name > > and a "get" prefix. > > > It took me ages to work this out, and i would love it if someone out > > there could explain why. > > My only guess is that it does have 1 convenient feature, and that is, > > you can actually use this to determine which variables will be seen in > > the resulting serialised XML, but you can still work happily with all > > the other variables in an object (like counters and states) and not > > have them appear in the output. > > > Nice one. Just wish i found a tutuorial out there that explained this > > to me from the start. > > > Am still interested to hear what others do. > > > /David > > > -- > > 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%2Bunsubs > > [email protected]> > > . > > 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 [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.
