On 30 September 2011 16:08, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> wrote: > If you edit() and persist User (what you did in the code sample you sent), > then the "mutableUser" will be frozen at the time you fire() the request, > and if all goes well (i.e. in the Receiver's onSuccess), you could then just > use the "mutableUser" instance as your new "cached" user.
:-) Yes, but then BasicUser doesn't get persisted which was the whole point of the operation. And server side [i.e. in UserService#persist(User)] I have no idea what changed in User (only RF would know that). I really don't want to have save the entire User graph just to update one integer. What I've got working now is persisting BasicUser and requesting User from the server afterwards. Very expensive and wasteful but at least that works. Surely there must be a better way? -- 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.
