> Is there a clean way to *not* require the user to refresh the page? Everything Thomas said is right, and I'll chime in with my own experience. Basically:
- If you use IsSerializable and no type-name elision you won't have to keep old GWT RPC policy files around between builds (the legacy serialization policy will handle new/old clients as long as your DTOs don't have changes, which for frequent builds is probably more often the case--AFAIK this makes GWT RPC comparable to RF in handling non-breaking-changes to the DTOs) - As Thomas said, handle IncompatibleRemoteServiceExceptions for when DTOs do have breaking changes - As Thomas said, handle 404s in runAsync onFailures (or just not use async loading if your app is small enough :-) - Have a clean switch between new/old servers (e.g. if you have 10 servers, then start 10 new servers, and slowly turn off the old ones, you'll run into problems, which I walked through in a blog post [1]). Ideally you can immediately switch from the old server(s) to the new. Having seamless deployments is surprisingly hard for GWT apps--although I don't think the problems are unique to GWT vs. regular webapps, its approach to perfect caching highlights the problems of new/old servers/clients trying to talk nicely to each other. I'd be interested in hearing internal/Google best practices for this sort of stuff, although it looks like Thomas has already inferred a lot of it by watching how the Google Groups UI behaves. - Stephen [1] http://draconianoverlord.com/2010/07/07/gwt-seamless-upgrades.html On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:37 AM UTC-6, Kyle Baley wrote: > > Now that I've determined our problem, I have another question. Is there a > clean way to *not* require the user to refresh the page? On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:37 AM UTC-6, Kyle Baley wrote: > > Now that I've determined our problem, I have another question. Is there a > clean way to *not* require the user to refresh the page? On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:37 AM UTC-6, Kyle Baley wrote: > > Now that I've determined our problem, I have another question. Is there a > clean way to *not* require the user to refresh the page? On Thursday, January 5, 2012 6:39:37 AM UTC-6, Kyle Baley wrote: > > Now that I've determined our problem, I have another question. Is there a > clean way to *not* require the user to refresh the page? -- 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/-/e0k8yW6wSigJ. 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.
