Hello,
I've been doing exactly what JEA asks using GWTx (http://
code.google.com/p/gwtx/)... it extends GWT to use
java.beans.PropertyChange* which implement all that's needed for the
Observer and clientside MVC patterns. As an example for JEA's request
you could implement a user model that
Joe,
Aha! moment: GWT is not Java.
Walden
On Nov 5, 2:00 am, JEA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to everyone who contributed their comments on this problem. It
has been tremendously educational for me. This is my first crack at
using GWT.
To clarify, I am trying to send event messages
Joe,
You don't need DOM events, per se. Use Observer Pattern. Your Login
module doesn't need to know who's subscribed. It just needs to
implement the Observable interface (register listeners, fire login
state change events). Your other modules are in fact dependent upon
Login. They need to
I wanted to do something similar to having a bunch of independent
modules interacting on a page, but gave up, and stuck with the
monolithic app. I think you really need to analyze if it's worth
breaking up the app into modules and trying to work with all this glue
you'll need. For instance,
Err, size and speed were increased by keeping it in one app should
have read, size was decreased, speed was increased by keeping all the
modules in one app.
On Nov 4, 11:56 am, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wanted to do something similar to having a bunch of independent
modules interacting
Brian,
I think it should be made clear that GWT Modules are reuse packagings,
just like Java classes, and don't even imply a runtime application
architecture. The only reason for breaking code into Modules is to
reuse it by inheritance rather than duplicating code.
Walden
On Nov 4, 11:58 am,
I was thinking about this a little more, and threw around a couple
ideas where it would be nice to break a monolithic-at-runtime
application into runtime modules (analagous to breaking an .exe into a
bunch of .dll's).
How much javascript can a browser deal with? If there's some maximum
size an
Brian,
It sounds to me like the scenarios you describe here would be
addressed by the runAsync work currently underway. The runAsync
feature will allow the developer to indicate portions of code that can
be lazily loaded from the server as needed. The compiler takes care of
separating and
@Thomas,
If you could define *application* then I could figure out if I can
make any sense of your comment. There may be confusion arising from
my sloppy use of the term 'module'. I was talking runtime
architecture, not code organization. So maybe I should have said
'component' instead.
Sounds interesting, thanks for the head's up.
On Nov 4, 5:30 pm, Isaac Truett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian,
It sounds to me like the scenarios you describe here would be
addressed by the runAsync work currently underway. The runAsync
feature will allow the developer to indicate portions
On 4 nov, 21:28, walden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Thomas,
If you could define *application* then I could figure out if I can
make any sense of your comment. There may be confusion arising from
my sloppy use of the term 'module'. I was talking runtime
architecture, not code organization.
Thanks to everyone who contributed their comments on this problem. It
has been tremendously educational for me. This is my first crack at
using GWT.
To clarify, I am trying to send event messages between separately
compiled GWT mini-apps on one page, not just separate modules. As was
I have a web site that has pages that each can contain a variety of
independent apps embedded in a different positions within an otherwise
conventional HTML page. Although independent, they can affect one
another. For example, there is a login box that authenticates a
user. Based on the user
13 matches
Mail list logo
