i have a bad feeling by caching every (not to be constructed on every place change)-activity via the boiler plate overkill (imho it is): CachingActivityMapper, FilteredActivityMapper, overriding equals/clone of the place (in a contract breaking way?, i just created an abstract place with special equals/hashCode for this use case) only to get an existing instance of an activity. But if i understand the current documentation of activities and places correctly, this boiler plate way is the "default" way?!
but what about the way jens proposed here <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/OsDpLtBoTQo/sprjJ37dfeAJ>(and probably many users do it like this way - expect me?!) - caching the activity in a filed of a "normal" mapper? or the other way around: for what use cases a cached activity/new activity should be returned based on the decision - is place equal to old place? And is there a use case where this will work without overriding equals/hashCode? thx in advance -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/LSM2elctk0sJ. 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.
