For anyone else still having this issue, I thought it may be helpful to
share that I encountered a similar exception when attempting to construct a
json number with an NaN value
On Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 3:46:00 PM UTC-4, Sydney wrote:
>
> After deploying my app on appengine, I get the
I have been investigating migrating our current GWT Project to use
>> gwt-eclipse-plugin-v3 <https://github.com/gwt-plugins/gwt-eclipse-plugin>
>> together
>> with gwt-maven-plugin <https://tbroyer.github.io/gwt-maven-plugin/>. Our
>> project uses Requestfact
<https://tbroyer.github.io/gwt-maven-plugin/>. Our
> project uses Requestfactory extensively, so I created a project using
> modular-requestfactory <https://github.com/tbroyer/gwt-maven-archetypes/>
> archetype.
>
> Using maven commands I could successfully run the sa
Hi Guys,
I have been investigating migrating our current GWT Project to use
gwt-eclipse-plugin-v3 <https://github.com/gwt-plugins/gwt-eclipse-plugin>
together
with gwt-maven-plugin <https://tbroyer.github.io/gwt-maven-plugin/>. Our
project uses Requestfactory extensively,
Thanks Ignacio,
Indeed. Our app will probably stay on the GWT 2.8 "branch" for a long time
to come. Hopefully in that time something better will come along. We are
mainly betting heavily on Java, JPA, lots of client side code... So
hopefully won't be too painful a switch.
Cheers
Sam
On
Salk31, please note that we are saying that if you are going to start
learning RF right now, you better try other approach. But as you said, RF,
editor framework, probably validations, ui binder, etc is a pretty good
solution. You should note that this solution is not going to evolve anymore
(I
>
> And who knows, maybe one day we'll finally have grpc-web ;-)
>
Oh please! +1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
obscure than RPC ;-)
And "documented" by
AutoBeans:
https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt/tree/2.8.0/user/src/com/google/web/bindery/requestfactory/shared/messages
They allow entities to be referenced multiple times without duplication,
including reference cycles.
not easy to debug, not com
I can definitely see that it is complex (like compiler, garage collection,
rdbms...) so it needs to outweigh that cost. My problem is that I really
like UiBinder + Editor + RequestFactory and we have a large app built
around this. I've been doing web for 25 years and it finally felt mature.
Do
ue., 5 ene. 2017 15:01, salk31 <sal...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> :(
>>
>>
>> On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>>
>> +1 Do not start learning/using RequestFactory (or even GWT RPC I'd say).
>> Learn JsInterop and use json-b
com> escribió:
> :(
>
>
> On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
> +1 Do not start learning/using RequestFactory (or even GWT RPC I'd say).
> Learn JsInterop and use json-based http APIs.
>
> --
> You received this message because you ar
:(
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 2:11:35 PM UTC, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
> +1 Do not start learning/using RequestFactory (or even GWT RPC I'd say).
> Learn JsInterop and use json-based http APIs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
+1 Do not start learning/using RequestFactory (or even GWT RPC I'd say). Learn
JsInterop and use json-based http APIs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, sen
Hi, a side note. IMO you should not start using request factory. It is a
pretty awesome lib which solves a lot of problem which probably you don't
have with the cost of a complexity which will make you ask a lot of doubt's
like this one for a long time. IMO if you want a API focused in your model,
Hi everyone,
I got a question regarding datatypes. I got a object on the server side
that has a value of type Object. Like this:
class MyObject{
public *Object *getValue();
public void setValue(*Object *value);
}
How is it possible to have proxies for this object on the client side
Ok I got it working now. For those facing the same problems, here are the
pitfalls I came across:
1. I create a proxy with one request and send the proxy with another
request. One have to create proxies with the same request that is use to
call the server.
2. The proxies had setter-Methods
Hi again,
maybe a simple example helps to understand better:
I actually want a request like this:
Request findAll(*VehicleProxy *vehicle);
However I want to send car, motorbike, bike etc with the request. Those are
all implementing the "Vehicle" interface but also have more attributes and
Hi everyone,
On the *server-side* I have an interface lets call it "CommonInterface".
There are some subinterfaces and various implementations.
Now the client should be able to create objects that fit the
"CommonInterface" and send it to the server. However there is a
wrapperClass around that
Hi everyone,
On the server-side I have an interface lets call it "CommonInterface".
There are some subinterfaces and various implementations.
Now the client should be able to create objects that fit the
"CommonInterface" and send it to the server. The Request should look like
this:
Ok - our code has a default finder used generically for all calls, though
some locators override it. I hadn't been very aware of it - it was this
that was causing the issue.
Once I overrode the finder to fill in transient values, my problems went
away.
Thanks for pointing me in the right
Ah, ok - I didn't realize that I was able to provide my own modification of
the locator method. In my debugging of our code, I saw the RF framework do
a direct to an EntityManager.find() method. For some reason I didn't see
that this was something we could modify. I also wasn't aware of
> But when RF looks up the current value to compare, it will always be null
> because the regular lookup doesn't set the transient value.
>
RF expects a correctly filled entity after loading it from the DB using the
entity locator methods (because RF only sends changed data). It's your job
... or maybe an improvement, whereby fields marked @Transient would always
be sent, and not use the usual lookup/compare workflow?
I'm surprised it works the way it does - when the original value is
fetched, we set the @Transient values when returned to the client. But
when RF looks up the
Sorry, yes, it was an EntityProxy.
My ideas to solve it were:
1) Use a ValueProxy instead of an EntityProxy
2) Use a ValueProxy for the @Transient String value (dunno how a transient
value, expressed as a ValueProxy within an EntityProxy, would be handled,
or if it's allowed)
3) Pass the
Assuming an EntityProxy here, if the field is left unchanged, then it's not
sent to the server. On the server side, the entity is loaded by the Locator and
then the diff is applied. So if the Locator gets a null field, it'll be left
null.
You may have to use a ValueProxy here…
--
You received
Hi all...
So I have a situation where we have an entity persisted with JPA on the
server:
public class MyEntity ... {
> private String field1;
> private String field2;
> @Transient
> private String myTransientField;
> }
... and we have a proxy:
public class MyEntityProxy ...
Broyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:46:03 PM UTC+2, Seth wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>
>>> After some jar hell, I figured out that the
>>> requestfactory-server-2.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>>> after March 20,
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 11:34:34 AM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:46:03 PM UTC+2, Seth wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> After some jar hell, I figured out that the
>> requestfactory-server-2.8.0
On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:46:03 PM UTC+2, Seth wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> After some jar hell, I figured out that the
> requestfactory-server-2.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> after March 20, 2016 (or so) seems to be including some Gson classes (and
> it doesn't seem to use a
Hi all,
After some jar hell, I figured out that the
requestfactory-server-2.8.0-SNAPSHOT
after March 20, 2016 (or so) seems to be including some Gson classes (and
it doesn't seem to use a dependency). These Gson classes are causing some
classpath problems with another dependency
Hi all,
After some jar hell, I figured out that the
requestfactory-server-2.8.0-SNAPSHOT after March 20, 2016 (or so) seems to
be including some Gson classes (and it doesn't seem to use a dependency).
These Gson classes are causing some classpath problems with another
dependency that depends
Thank you Thomas for the explanation
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:59:10 PM UTC+1, Dirk Holzenburg wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> why is com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.shared.impl.Constants missing
> in both requestfactory-client.jar and requestfactory-server.jar? Is there
> any particular rea
Hi everyone,
why is com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.shared.impl.Constants missing
in both requestfactory-client.jar and requestfactory-server.jar? Is there
any particular reason?
And why is com.google.gwt.thirdparty.json.* missing in the source jars?
Legal reasons?
Thank you very much
What is the best way to deal with objects that still get cached when a
transaction fails and is rolled back?
I am running into this with GAE / JDO / GWT RequestFactory. The
transaction rightfully fails and rolls back, but then the memcache still
retains the older values. The datastore has
Guys,
after experimenting with subclassing RequestFactoryServlet for a while, I
devised a new trick to have RequestFactory Services be managed Beans.
It is a simple trick where a ServiceLocator obtains Services from the
BeanManager.
I'd like to share it with the community.
-- x --
public final
up saving any changes then you simply do not call
flush(). I think thats the normal workflow (never really used
RequestFactory). As you use MVP I would add a factory method to the view to
create the editor driver since you need to GWT.create() it and you normally
want to avoid GWT.create
I'm trying to convert an app from using plain JSON to using
RequestFactory. The app has a view and presenter. So, I use the
RequestFactory to get Contact instances, and pass them on the view to
edit. But, the editing runs into an issue with the AutoBean being frozen.
Without MVP, I would
llow developers to use lambdas/method
> references for requestfactory.
>
> my idea was that there could be some overloaded versions of
> fire(Receiver) and to(Receiver) that accept 1-3 lamdbas (4 if the
> deprecated onViolation should be supported here too).
>
> e.g
>
I am pretty sure APIs will be enhanced for better lambda use over time but
that will probably happen after a 2.8 release.
Given your concrete example it might be cleaner to let fire() return an
object that you can use to register callbacks on, similar to a Promise /
CompletableFuture. That
Hello there,
i wonder if there are plans to allow developers to use lambdas/method
references for requestfactory.
my idea was that there could be some overloaded versions of
fire(Receiver) and to(Receiver) that accept 1-3 lamdbas (4 if the
deprecated onViolation should be supported here too
Hi everyone,
Im using the requestFactory and want to update an entity. The problem is,
its frozen.
I get an entityProxy passed, were I like to update 1 value. The problem is,
when I try to edit it with a new Request, it fails, cause the proxy is
frozen.
I found this:
http
The first question that comes to mind is: where does 'object' come from?
(and why is it frozen)
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 9:10:30 PM UTC+2, Manuel wrote:
Hi everyone,
Im using the requestFactory and want to update an entity. The problem is,
its frozen.
I get an entityProxy passed
be worked with. Changing values and persisting did not cause
exceptions anymore.
Am Montag, 24. August 2015 21:10:30 UTC+2 schrieb Manuel:
Hi everyone,
Im using the requestFactory and want to update an entity. The problem is,
its frozen.
I get an entityProxy passed, were I like to update 1
Hello,
according to the documentation
http://www.gwtproject.org/doc/latest/DevGuideRequestFactory.html#transportable
of RequestFactory, the String class is not defined as a transportable type.
However, the example code above uses String both as paramaters and return
values. Is this an error
Its a documentation issue. The Other value types row should also contain
String.
-- J.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Thank you for the confirmation!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send
at
com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.shared.impl.IdFactory.asEntityProxy(IdFactory.java:66)*
Is it possible to do what I'm trying here? If so, how?
Assuming you get that error on the client side, it actually means that your
RequestFactory doesn't know about BProxy.
BProxy has to be referenced from a RequestContext or another
EntityProxy
domain objects).
RequestFactory does not (yet
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5367)
support polymorphism, so your collection can only ever contain a single
interface.
Not sure there's a solution to your problem besides refactoring your
domain
classes
at
com.google.web.bindery.requestfactory.shared.impl.IdFactory.asEntityProxy(IdFactory.java:66)*
Is it possible to do what I'm trying here? If so, how?
Assuming you get that error on the client side, it actually means that
your RequestFactory doesn't know about BProxy.
BProxy has to be referenced from a RequestContext or another
AM UTC+3, Jens wrote:
We don't use RequestFactory but GWT-RPC with Eclipselink + optimistic
locking and heavy auto saving. Because we don't want to live with the extra
query when doing the em.find / detach / update version / merge dance we
simply do the version check manually in the app. Also
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 12:21:03 PM UTC+2, Anton Mityagin wrote:
In general, it is unclear why the guys at Google have made the RF this way.
If you look at the changes between the various milestones and RCs of GWT
2.1, and then 2.1.1 and 2.2, you'll see that RF is totally different
Undoubtedly, RF - greate thing. I use it and plan to continue to use.
The more that I get to make workaround for those things that do not exist
in RF.
Just very strange that such a good thing as RF does not support such basic
things like optimistic locking, refire request after excpetion.
version; }
// public void setVersion() {} // not required/recomended
}
As explained in stackoverflow
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F7696764%2Fdoes-gwt-requestfactory-support-implementation-of-optimistic-concurrency-control%2F7697307%237697307sa=Dsntz=1usg
%2Fstackoverflow.com%2Fquestions%2F7696764%2Fdoes-gwt-requestfactory-support-implementation-of-optimistic-concurrency-control%2F7697307%237697307sa=Dsntz=1usg=AFQjCNEjQwYbtnsepzEPUD0X1zeqCT3jAg
RF
only sent changes, this forces to have an always-null expectedVersion and
manually copy
We don't use RequestFactory but GWT-RPC with Eclipselink + optimistic
locking and heavy auto saving. Because we don't want to live with the extra
query when doing the em.find / detach / update version / merge dance we
simply do the version check manually in the app. Also we don't send
versions
-requestfactory-support-implementation-of-optimistic-concurrency-control%2F7697307%237697307sa=Dsntz=1usg=AFQjCNEjQwYbtnsepzEPUD0X1zeqCT3jAg
RF
only sent changes, this forces to have an always-null expectedVersion and
manually copy the getVersion to setExpectedVersion to enable optimistic
locking
As all you know RequestFactory does not support optimistic locking.
see
details https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=6046
I tried to implement it для RequestFactory + Spring + JPA + Hibernate
I took as a basis the idea proposed by
Thomas
(http://stackoverflow.com
I think I've found a workaround.
A key of it is to ignore validation after entity was deleted in *another *
context.
To do that you need implement some interface in proxies which can be
deleted.
something like:
public interface IgnoreValidator
{
boolean isIgnore();
void
starts and can be used, but when
it comes to the first usage of the requestfactory the exception is thrown.
I have undeployed/recompiled/deployed the app multiple time now.
Any idea?
Thanks!
Andy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web
)
I added the gwt-dev.jar in the WEB-INF/lib directory after I got that
exception the first time and I can see it in the lib folder on the server.
But the Exception is still thrown. The app starts and can be used, but when
it comes to the first usage of the requestfactory the exception is thrown
/lib directory after I got that
exception the first time and I can see it in the lib folder on the server.
But the Exception is still thrown. The app starts and can be used, but when
it comes to the first usage of the requestfactory the exception is thrown.
I have undeployed/recompiled/deployed
From the official GWT documentation:
When querying the server, RequestFactory does not automatically populate
relations in the object graph. To do this, use the with() method on a
request and specify the related property name as a String:
RequestPerson findReq =
requestFactory.personRequest
Hi,
I have written a small program to test the RequestFactory. I have a
TestEntity class and a TestValue class on the server and corresponding
TestEntityProxy and TestValueProxy on the client.
public class TestEntity {
private static long staticIDpool = 0;
private Long id;
private String
Jens, it works! Thanks a lot for this brief and great answer!
Am Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015 19:08:22 UTC+1 schrieb Jens:
From the official GWT documentation:
When querying the server, RequestFactory does not automatically populate
relations in the object graph. To do this, use
Hi all, i decided to use GWT Request Factory instead of RPC because of
complex type objects in my project. I face this error everytime when i try
to remove entity from List.
public class BasketItem implements Serializable{
private Integer id;
private PaymentState paymentState;
On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:23:03 AM UTC+2, stepan kachan wrote:
Hi all, i decided to use GWT Request Factory instead of RPC because of
complex type objects in my project. I face this error everytime when i try
to remove entity from List.
public class BasketItem implements
to be technical.
A GWT beginner does the following learning steps (of course not complete):
1. learn RPC
2. application and objects grow and you look for alternatives:
RequestFactory to the rescue!
3. highly motivated you start learning
4. two weeks later you might ask yourself if this was a good idea
learning steps (of course not complete):
1. learn RPC
2. application and objects grow and you look for alternatives:
RequestFactory to the rescue!
3. highly motivated you start learning
4. two weeks later you might ask yourself if this was a good idea, of
course you made it work, but you
I've used RPC, RequestFactory and now RestyGWT in some GWT projects.
In my opinion RequestFactory development should be canceled and replaced by
RestyGWT (or something like that).
My key arguments for that drastic opinion:
RPC
+ easy to learn
- proprietary
- problems when trying to send
...
Vassilis
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Ralf Klemmer ralf.klem...@gmail.com
wrote:
I've used RPC, RequestFactory and now RestyGWT in some GWT projects.
In my opinion RequestFactory development should be canceled and replaced
by RestyGWT (or something like that).
My key arguments for that drastic
I have been using RequestFactory extensively for a project and I must say
that although it is pretty well engineered, the learning curve is quite
high.
If you have a CRUD heacy application where you send and receive lots of
data, it might be a good solution (because it only sends deltas
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:22:47 PM UTC+2, Ümit Seren wrote:
I have been using RequestFactory extensively for a project and I must say
that although it is pretty well engineered, the learning curve is quite
high.
+1
If you have a CRUD heacy application where you send
- code : https://github.com/chescot2302/devol
Link App: https://devolpay.appspot.com/#X
2014-10-16 8:22 GMT-05:00 Ümit Seren uemit.se...@gmail.com:
I have been using RequestFactory extensively for a project and I must say
that although it is pretty well engineered, the learning curve is quite
Boa tarde Amigos,
Estou integrando Vraptor com o GWT e tenho algumas duvidas em relação a
forma de fazer a ligação através do RequestFactory.
No RequestFactory tem a interface ServiceLocator que serve para fazer a
ligação entre com o serviço do lado java. Já trabalhei com EBJ3 do lado do
java
através do RequestFactory.
No RequestFactory tem a interface ServiceLocator que serve para fazer a
ligação entre com o serviço do lado java. Já trabalhei com EBJ3 do lado do
java onde fazemos a implementação usando o InitialContext.doLookup(
java:global/ejb/ + clazz.getSimpleName
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 6:45:46 PM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote:
Hmm, it might be that Maps are only supported as properties within
proxies. Unit tests only cover that at least (and IIRC, we were aware of
the limitation but nobody worked on that final step).
It seems that doesn't
https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5974 seems to
cover this, but from comments it is unclear whether it is solved in
compiler but not in annotations processor and why its status is still New.
Documentation seems updated
since
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:49:10 AM UTC+2, Gordan Krešić wrote:
https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5974 seems
to cover this, but from comments it is unclear whether it is solved in
compiler but not in annotations processor and why its status is still
object on server side, but that seems to me as working
around RequestFactory instead of using its provided services.
Least feasible solution is to propagate frozen proxy instance from top
level editor all the way down editor hierarchy, but that leads to spaghetti
code.
I know that RequestContext
solution wound be to refactor getSuggestions method to accept only
id and rebuild full object on server side, but that seems to me as working
around RequestFactory instead of using its provided services.
Sending the proxy will rebuild full object on server side anyway, so
it's more a matter
On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 2:33:26 PM UTC+2, Thomas Broyer wrote:
I know that RequestContext holds original (non-edit()ed, frozen) instance
for every EntityProxy (for calculating diffs that it needs to send to
server) - is there any way to get that original proxy from edited()-ed
*should* be transportable. GWT compilation doesn't give me any error.
If I drop java.util.List from method and leave just
java.util.MapEntityAProxy, EntityBProxy that validates ok.
GWT is 2.6.1
Is this a bug in requestfactory-apt.jar or am I missing something?
--
You received this message
* be transportable. GWT compilation doesn't give me any
error.
If I drop java.util.List from method and leave just
java.util.MapEntityAProxy, EntityBProxy that validates ok.
GWT is 2.6.1
Is this a bug in requestfactory-apt.jar or am I missing something?
--
You received this message because you
Is it possible that this issue reemerged on Tomcat 8 using GWT 2.6.1?
Test case is working properly on Tomcat 7.0.32, but when the same app is
started under Tomcat 8.0.9 described NPE is again thrown in server code. At
first I suspected that it has something to do with POST payload encoding,
Thomas,
Thank you for the detailed answer (as always) :)
Cheers
Samin
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:01:21 PM UTC+10, Thomas Broyer wrote:
If you go to http://jsfiddle.net/vX8uK/ you'll see that you'll have an
onbeforeunload event (in GWT, Window.ClosingEvent) before the request is
abort
Why is it mandatory to have both getters and setters for a field in RF
Proxy interfaces? For some fields (like plain text password), you want
setters only.
e.g.
@ProxyFor(value = User.class)
public interface UserProxy extends ValueProxy {
void setPassword(String password);
}
See https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5760
I don't get why having a getter defeats the purpose. Just because you
have a getter does not mean there's a value to get.
You could also have a setPassword service method instead (you can
probably use your existing
Hi Alberto,
Thanks for your tip :) Unfortunately I can't inform the user to wait (I
mean the product description is to let the user to do what ever they want
without disturbing them) So I need to find the way to let the Receiver
class not to wait for the response.
Any ideas?
Thanks again
If you go to http://jsfiddle.net/vX8uK/ you'll see that you'll have an
onbeforeunload event (in GWT, Window.ClosingEvent) before the request is
abort with status=0, and then you have the onunload (in GWT, CloseEvent).
That means you can listen to Window.ClosingEvent and set a flag to ignore
Hi Samir,
the page refresh should call the closinghandler cause a refresh is a page
unload followed by a load and the closing handler essentially
is a listener to 'onbeforeunload' event.
Cheers,
Alberto
Note:
there are issues with the returned message so if you go for a closing
handler read
Thanks Alberto :)
Isn't this handler triggered for closing the Window? I'm just refreshing a
page which doesn't fire the associated event. Or am I missing something?
Thanks again
Samin
On Friday, June 13, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC+10, Alberto Mancini wrote:
Hi,
may be not a solution in your
Hi Everyone
My question might be very basic but couldn't find the answer anywhere.
I'm working with requestFactory and send some requests to the server at
almost the same time. One of these request takes couple of seconds, if the
user refresh the page before the response is ready
think it is at least less dangerous than ignoring eventual errors.
Alberto.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Samin Pour sami...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone
My question might be very basic but couldn't find the answer anywhere.
I'm working with requestFactory and send some requests
method (calling to a servlet), or using some FileUpload
functionality (tweaks required). I don't see anything about using
RequestFactory to do it.
We *could* use GWT-RPC to do it, I suppose.
Does anyone know the EASIEST, most GWT-native way of doing this, without
too many bells and whistles
A good starting point for MVP is the MobileWebApp example packaged with
GWT. I have experience with MVP using JDO (DataNucleus), GWT
RequestFactory, and AppEngine. I have found this combination to be very
fast and responsive for the client. Scaling with AppEngine is not an issue
if you
Hello,
Are there any examples how to use GWT, RequestFactory, MVP, JDO and
DataNucleus all together?
Is MVP supported under GAE/J? How is it possible to scale MVP without GAE/J?
Thank you in advance.
Mic
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web
to delegate to the plugin (or
manually run Maven generate-sources)
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 6:57:51 PM UTC+1, joja wrote:
Hello,
I have a question: Is it necessary to do a maven build (package) in Spring
Tool Suite in order to run the RequestFactory Validation Tool
to validate the GWT
To: google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com
CC: Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com; datken...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: RequestFactory Validation Tool
Eclipse (thus STS) is quite bad at annotation processing. It regularly
fails (forcing you to disable and re-enable it, and/or change the output
Hello,
I have a question: Is it necessary to do a maven build (package) in Spring
Tool Suite in order to run the RequestFactory Validation Tool
to validate the GWT ProxyForName and ServiceName annotations?
Without only doing a Project - clean - build I get this error:
RequestFactory Validation
1 - 100 of 2433 matches
Mail list logo
