I was thinking of a similar approach,
but couldn't come up with a way to populate the lookup table
(initialize it for the first time with data).
could you please explain how you register activities/places in the
lookup table, so that they are available at run-time ?
At the moment I simply
I'm sorry but, what's the problem actually? theoretical purity?
(AFAICT, Roo generated apps use those processors for ease of maintainance:
the processor is maintained by Roo while the activity mapper is generated
once)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
are you suggesting this is nothing to worry about ?
in the case of Expenses app, there are only three entities: Expenses,
Reports, Employees
(and number of places and fine-grained activities mapper, is relative
to the number of entities)
however, in a larger app , there might be 50 entities.
and
My app has a Place for every EntityProxy type.
BasePlace has getProxyType() method that is called in
MyActivityMapper.getActivity(place).
Based on the proxy type returned, getActivity() method looks up an
activity factory and calls factory.createActivity(place, config)
All I have to do is to
thank you for your suggestion.
I was thinking of a similar approach,
but couldn't come up with a way to populate the lookup table
(initialize it for the first time with data).
could you please explain how you register activities/places in the
lookup table, so that they are available at run-time
GWT MVP ActivityMappers have lots of instanceof checks [*]
for mapping a given Place to the corresponding Activity (or to a more
specific AcitivtityMapper).
I was wondering if there is a way to avoid using instanceof checks,
and instead use an elegant Object Oriented approach. I looked into a
You could use a generator, I think.
--
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-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
if code generator generates the same instanceof checks, the problem
still remains.
how can we replace the instanceof checks with a new design
(pattern) ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to
Oh, I know, but at least you wouldn't have to write them. Sorry, I thought
that was the issue at hand here.
Ignore my answer; I misunderstood the question.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email
