Re: Simple question about GWT.create() signature

2010-11-30 Thread Thomas Broyer
On 29 nov, 10:55, ep eplisc...@googlemail.com wrote: Thomas, in fact it would be really nice if GWT.create() would not require literals, we wanted to use a template method throughout our framework to allow to declare the classes to instantiate, maybe you can provide the issue number so we

Re: Simple question about GWT.create() signature

2010-11-29 Thread Alessandro Carraro (JUG Padova)
Thank you for the reply I did not know much about GWT-RPC, bay be I should study more before making questions... I was aware of the generic call, but looks to me like a cast :) I was NOT aware of the feature called 'type inference'. I used my IDE to complete, and noticed that only Object methods

Re: Simple question about GWT.create() signature

2010-11-29 Thread ep
Thomas, in fact it would be really nice if GWT.create() would not require literals, we wanted to use a template method throughout our framework to allow to declare the classes to instantiate, maybe you can provide the issue number so we can vote for it :-) But after a month I discovered that

Re: Simple question about GWT.create() signature

2010-11-28 Thread Thomas Broyer
On 26 nov, 21:12, Alessandro Carraro (JUG Padova) carraro.alessan...@gmail.com wrote: A simple qestion, sorry if it is a FAQ: Why   public static T T create(Class? classLiteral) and not   public static T T create(ClassT classLiteral) With GWT-RPC you pass the synchronous (extends

Simple question about GWT.create() signature

2010-11-27 Thread Alessandro Carraro (JUG Padova)
A simple qestion, sorry if it is a FAQ: Why public static T T create(Class? classLiteral) and not public static T T create(ClassT classLiteral) the second one would save me from a lot of unnecessary casts (IMHO). What's worse, I tried to write the helper function: