Hi Manolo, I looked the [3]rd link and the conversation between you and tbroyer you shared. I have to say again and learn your hi-efficiency that we could do so many things in one day. I am sure I can not just benefit much more than programming and communication skills, but also many others from the list in only several months.
Thanks. On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <[email protected]>wrote: > 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* >>>> >>> >>> >> > -- *echo*
