I started using the approach of "part 1<http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/articles/mvp-architecture.html>" 2 years ago (after Ray Ryan's famous talk at I/O) and switched to the one of "part 2 <http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/articles/mvp-architecture-2.html>" soon after (a couple months or so). It puts a bit more logic into the view, but makes the code oh so more readable and testable (you just have to mock your view vs. many HasXxxHandlers/HasText/Focusable/etc.) I started using activities almost a year ago, as soon as they came out in 2.1-m1 and I don't regret it. Activities however are in no way related to MVP: you can use activities without doing MVP, and you can (and you probably will if your UI is complex) do MVP outside activities. None of these approaches to MVP is outdated. Choosing one or the other is mostly a matter of taste, and how much logic you're ready to push into the view (even though "part 2" way doesn't necessarily implies a less dumb view; but "part 1" way kind of enforces it OTOH). And both approaches can be used with activities.
Now that I use them extensively, I couldn't live without MVP (to decouple presentation logic –including "service calls"– from the view), places and activities (for navigating in the app, and "compositing the screen"), dependency injection (it simplifies the code so much!), and the Editor framework (to display and/or edit objects). YMMV but that's my combo for success. -- 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.
