Thanks Patrick, I'll have a watch of that. In the meantime, I think the below change request would solve the issue quite nicely:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=7140 On Jan 22, 5:39 pm, Patrick Tucker <tucker...@gmail.com> wrote: > The 2011 Google I/O session "High-performance GWT: best practices for > writing smaller, faster apps" talks a little about this. If you > haven't watched the video yet, it might be worth your time. > > On Jan 22, 11:38 am, Mike H <mike.m.her...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to read my post and reply Thomas. So, just > > to make sure I understand, have you implemented the Activity as a > > singleton to prevent the Activity Manager reloading the same activity? > > If so, do you still need to know in the Activity if it is currently in > > a "started" state? > > > Just to expand on why I think these are bad solutions - I think I > > consider my attempts bad solutions because they all seem to be trying > > to get round a limitation of the Activity Manager - even with your > > solution, is it right that the Activity Manager is bypassed and the > > Activity itself is coupled to the PlaceChangeEvent? I thought the idea > > of the Place Controller and Activity Manager was to avoid the > > activities having to be concerned about handling these events. Also, I > > assume your Activity must have to look inside the PlaceChangeEvent to > > check if it is for the Place associated with the Activity? If so, this > > is really the job of the ActivityMapper, and having the Activity know > > what Place it is duplicates that information in two places. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
