Hi echo, you were right when you said that client and server could not share the same class, it is because a bug in gwt [1][2]. I have sent a patch to gwt which is pending on review [3], in the meanwhile you can use the patched class.
I have modified the rf example I sent, and I have committed it to your apache-extras project [4]. You can see that all code share the same class (Subject in this example), and there is a SubjectLocator responsible of instantiating the appropriate implementation. [1] http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=7509 [2] http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5762 [3] http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1764804/ [4] https://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/hupa-evo/experiments/rf-patched - Manolo On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > > I have committed to the apache-extras repository a very simple project > with everything set to use value-proxies. > It could work fine as the basis of how hupa can use them. > > just check it out and run: > svn co http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/hupa-evo/experiments/rf > cd rf > mvn test > mvn gwt:run > > - Manolo > > > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi echo, >> >> Actually the mail server is our datasource, and we get from it very few >> type of objects, just folders and messages. >> >> Folders and messages are not entities in the traditional sense of the >> concept because normally they do not change, so I would not use entities >> but values. >> >> It is pretty easier deal with valueproxies instead of entityproxies >> because the first one have less constrains. >> >> I would create an interface for each value, and I would use this >> interface as the valueproxy in the client. In the server side I would >> implement the valueproxy interface in the valueimplementation class. It >> have to work because I have used this approach some time. >> >> Said that, we need just one service class (or many depending of code >> readability) to interact with the server side. >> >> About caching, I think we have to do it in either client or server side >> or even in both. If we use value proxies it make it easier because we can >> serialize/deserialize anywhere without worrying about versions etc. >> >> >> - Manolo >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM, echo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> For there, >>> >>>> Some examples I have studied, while there is not a good idea about how >>>> to implement the find* method. >>>> I'v got a little confuse about the how to define our system's >>>> EntityManager. >>>> I will look more into the RF and hope to get a good approach to solve >>>> this issue. >>>> >>>> We could treat the mail server as the datasource, I think, and the >>> folders and messages can be seen as data like what you've referred earlier. >>> However, do you think both of them need to be cached, otherwise it will >>> very slow retrieve data from mail server over and over again. >>> >>> -- >>> *echo* >>> >> >> >
