my confusion is raising?! (did someone read my "answer"? i kindly ask that someone may pay attention to it) thomas i don't know if i understand the relation (i it exists) between MVP and places and activitie? "It'd be in most case a brad practice..." does this mean that is bad practice if places and activities don't have an relation to MVP in an given application? (and how does this relate to " Activities however are in no way related to MVP"?). at the moment i see an activity as an 3rd place to put logic in: "part1" says put all logic in presenter, "part2" says at some (use) cases logic in view is ok(is this: gwt discussion<../d/topic/google-web-toolkit/3wqCUQpz2d4/discussion>such a use case?), jens and thomas say history/state logic could be sperated from presenter and put into activity ?? (besides how good is the the history handling of part1<http://code.google.com/intl/de-DE/webtoolkit/articles/mvp-architecture.html#history>? is "at least" this part out of date and it is better to use places and activities?)
-- 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.
