I am not smart enough for requestFacyory.
On 12ζ14ζ₯, εεΎ9:14, Karthik Abram <[email protected]> wrote: > We have a significant sized app built using GWT 2.0 and we have simple > Command pattern based abstraction for sending entities back and forth > between the server and client. The new RequestFactory while > interesting seems to require too much "scaffolding" interfaces and > classes. > > - Why should I create duplicate proxy interfaces? Can't I just reuse the > entity? > - The requirement that the service implement the RequestContext > interface but not really - leads to poor code maintainability as one > cannot simply rename methods taking advantage of IDE features. > - The 2.1 idea of have DAO methods in entities? What was the thinking > here? Seems 2.1.1 is addressing it. > - The requirement to have findEntity() on the entity itself - leads to > very poor separation of concerns. > - The requirement to have getVersion() - well, what if I don't want my > entity to be versionable? Why am I being forced here? This is another > example of forcing the framework user to write code to make the > framework do its work. > - The requirement to explicitly edit() an entity (again, just so the > framework can figure out changes) is burdensome. > > My concern now is that other libraries (e.g. Ext GWT) will adopt this > forcing theRequestFactory upon everyone. How far does 2.1.1 go in > alleviating the above? I think I'm going to stick with the simple > GWT-RPC. Hopefully that is not going away anytime soon. -- 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.
