Yes it would work, but it doesn't quite communicate the same thing and doesn't have to mean the same thing either. Both work, but I choose IsSerializable because I thought Google's reasons were sound and my code is already bound to GAE and GWT in so many ways that this simple data-holder structure isn't worth trying to reuse as-is.
More on Googles reasoning: http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/latest/FAQ_Server.html#Does_the_GWT_RPC_system_support_the_use_of_java.io.Serializable Also worth mentioning is their tip from my original post that says: "Although the terminology is very similar, GWT's concept of "serializable" is slightly different than serialization based on the standard Java interface Serializable." On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, jhulford <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 7, 5:32 pm, JP <[email protected]> wrote: >> Fifth, ties with the fourth and is the obvious implementation of >> IsSerializable for RPC. Like so: >> public class GameData implements IsSerializable { > > You shouldn't need to use IsSerializable. Plain old > java.io.Serializable will work fine and keep your domain objects > decoupled from GWT references. > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
