Gaurav
pls post useful answers not crap, or give me correct links at least to
explain the problem.
I don't get ur humorism and BTW i don't get any compile errors or
runtime errors

Maybe I didn't explain properly the problem

The bean-type i get from JSONP Request builder is <BeanData extends
JavaScriptObject> and it works fine using its get methods.
I can read the data properly and what else. The problem is when it's
"saved" in something like this:

private BeanData beanData;

or this:

private JavaScriptObject beanData;

and it is passed to another class, the same "get" methods don't work
anymore. They return empty values.

any idea?

Thanks,
Julio

On 11 Dic, 07:46, Gaurav Vaish <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Julio,
>
> I think you need to first understand JavaScript before jumping on to
> using GWT.
>
> Once you are done, and you understand why JavaScriptObject instances
> can be type-"cast"ed from one type to another without giving any
> compiletime or runtime errors, you will automatically have solution to
> your problem!
>
> --
> Happy Hacking,
> Gaurav Vaishhttp://www.mastergaurav.com
>
> On Dec 10, 9:08 pm, julio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > weird, it looks like i can pass through classes primitive values as
> > int, char etc but not complex objects extending JavaScriptObject, cos
> > I cannot cast them anymore (BTW no errors got, just empty values)
>
> > Julio
>
> > On Dec 10, 10:43 am, julio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > before this:
>
> > > BeanData bd = data.createObject().cast();
>
> > > I tried with a normal:
>
> > > BeanData bd = (BeanData) data;
>
> > > and:
>
> > > BeanData bd = data.cast();
>
> > > but they don't work.
>
> > > BTW debugged them I saw that the data passed has the same refId of the
> > > "original", so it looks like is just not cast at all.
>
> > > On Dec 10, 10:22 am, skrat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > You can't, what you do here is that you create new (and empty)
> > > > JavaScriptObject, and cast it to your type. It seems that you think
> > > > you're copying the object, but that's certainly not true. I'm not sure
> > > > what the problem is, if you need to pass that instance to another
> > > > class, you can do it without any tranformation.

-- 
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