You must have been reading my mind because your reply arrived as soon as I posted my decision. I am a devout believer in Karma and as we know it is nothing to sneeze at; my luck, I'd get hit in the head by a 600 page hard covered book dedicated to DotNot web development falling from an elevated train station.
Thanks, Ben. Jeff On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Ben Imp <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd recommend simply extending the AsyncCallback. Its undoubtedly > more work up front, but its also not a hack, which is a Good Thing. > Its easy to understand, and future maintainers of the program will > thank you for that. Also, karma will likely stab you in the eye if > you don't. > > -Ben > > On Jan 14, 2:48 pm, Jeff Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > So far I have 146 and I am no where even nearly having a fully > implemented > > application. > > > > Eclipse's refactoring definitely would ease the pain if I go with > extending > > AsyncCallback :) > > > > Regarding extending ServiceInterfaceProxyGenerator, I've looked at the > code > > and it doesn't appear to be that big of a deal to implement the generator > > which just outputs strings. One drawback to it though is if the api > changes > > but I guess the same thing can be said for extending AsyncCallback as > well. > > > > Gee, I am still on the fence over which way to go. I gather from your > > feedback then that if it were your decision to make you'd go with > > AsyncCallback. > > > > Jeff > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:17 PM, David Chandler <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > You must have a LOT of AsyncCallbacks in order to make it worth the > pain of > > > modifying generator code :-) Extending AsyncCallback is the technique > most > > > people use and makes sense as it's clearly application code. > > > > > Perhaps one of the Eclipse refactoring tools can ease the pain? > > > > > /dmc > > > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jeff Schwartz < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >> I want to implement common error handling in all of my RPC onFailure > > >> methods. Excluding repeating the error handling code in every > invocation I > > >> can either 1) extend AsyncCallback and use it in all my invocations or > I can > > >> 2) extend ServiceInterfaceProxyGenerator and have it generate an > > >> implementation of AsyncCallback for me that would include my common > error > > >> handling. As I already have a lot of RPC calls using the normal > > >> AsyncCallback so using option 1 would obviously require refactoring a > lot of > > >> code. In contrast, were I to use option 2 there would be no > refactoring > > >> required. > > > > >> Perhaps the solution seems obvious, which is to use option 2, but I am > > >> hoping that you can provide feedback on both of these options and > perhaps > > >> illuminate any potential problems with either before I commit to one > or the > > >> other. > > > > >> Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > > > >> -- > > >> *Jeff Schwartz* > > > > >> -- > > >> 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%[email protected]> > <google-web-toolkit%[email protected]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > > > > >> . > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > David Chandler > > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google Web Toolkit > > > w:http://code.google.com/ > > > b:http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/ > > > t: @googledevtools > > > > > -- > > > 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%[email protected]> > <google-web-toolkit%[email protected]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > > > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > > > -- > > *Jeff Schwartz* > > -- > 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%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > -- *Jeff Schwartz* -- 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.
