Comment by pclog...@gmail.com:
The best poker blog http://poker-blogs-see.blogspot.com
Best PokerStars blog http://pokerstars-blogs.blogspot.com
Sexy, hot girls imagehttp://china-sexy-girl-images.blogspot.com/
For more information:
Comment by jon.nermut:
This looks promising. Mirrors some of my ideas at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit-contributors/browse_thread/thread/ebeb2a9ddc3cfd52/7534d2c15d49e40d
I like the emphasis on DRY
A couple of points:
1. One big DRY problem - repeating all the fields in the
In my case, I think different databinding have a big weakness. This
weakness is that we use strings to refer to object attributes binded.
Therefore, the java compiler can not verify the validity of the names
of the attributes listed.
So I think, we can design a databinding based on the mechanism
Comment by andrew.pietsch:
I've posted this to both the wave and wiki.
In looking at using !ValueStore with pectin I think it looks pretty
promising (which is nice for me since I have no desire to write my own
backend binding/CRUD layer). From what I can see it should be relatively
easy
Comment by andrew.pietsch:
Just a quick note before I've had a chance to dig deeper -
[http://code.google.com/p/gwt-pectin/ pectin] abstracts where the data
comes from using a value model so isn't really concerned with how it comes
and goes as long as it's can be adapted to a value model.
Comment by nwwells:
The wave is working now. Thanks!
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/ValueStoreAndRequestFactory
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Comment by sami.jaber:
@Ray
Ok I understand your async constraints. Let's have look at it when you
get back.
Sami
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/ValueStoreAndRequestFactory
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Comment by sami.jaber:
Ray,
I tried to reply inline to the wave but it hangs when I click edit (It
always asks me to reopen the wave)… anyway I quote my feedback here:
I used to work a lot with the “traditional” DataBinding? frameworks (Swing
JSR 295, JGoodies Binding, .NET framework
Comment by nwwells:
Is there a reason the @ServerType annotation needs to have a String rather
than an instance of ClassT? the only reason is that you would want to
refer to the annotation on the client-side... which doesn't make sense to
me. I would have commented on the Wave, but
Comment by johan.rydberg:
I second everything Sami Jaber said!
For more information:
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/ValueStoreAndRequestFactory
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Comment by rj...@google.com:
So I managed to write too much and explain too little.
The intent is that ValueBox would also be useful for data binding of plain
old client side JavaBeans, without any need for the Id and Property
classes. I can define a ValueBox interface tied to a set of bean
Comment by rj...@google.com:
That is, via calls like valueBox.setSubcription(bean, propertyNameString,
hasValueInstance), or valueBox.setSubscription(bean,
listPropertyNameString, hasValueListInstance)
For more information:
Comment by rj...@google.com:
I think I've fixed the turbulence on the wave if anyone wants to respond
there. The issue is a bug when your in a Group that has read-write access
but Public is set to read-only.
For more information:
13 matches
Mail list logo
