of abstraction going on so that several developers can work on the
same app all at different levels and as long as the interfaces remain
intact, they won't step on each other's toes. I'm a single developer
working on my own website so I figured MVP wasn't a good fit for me
because I won't gain anything from the benefits of MVP.
But if I was doing this kind of work with several developers I could
see the allure in having that much abstraction where coders, artists,
and layout engineers could all work together and everything will just
work at the end of the day.
I haven't seen Spring Roo's scaffolding so I can't speak to that
comparison, but with any design architecture, I think you just have to
chose what's best for you and your project.
On Jun 29, 12:29 am, JosephLi <joseph.l...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I am trying to follow along whats in "http://code.google.com/
> webtoolkit/articles/mvp-architecture-2.html" and I am just thinking
> that
> it requires too many classes and generics to construct a simple CRUD
> app for a single
> entity? I am posting this just to see if anyone feels the same
> towards
> that and have a better solution.
>
> Looking at the code generated by Spring Roo's scaffolding, it seems it
> is taking a more direct
> approach and cutting some layers as well. I am still trying to go thru
> the docs and trying to make sense of
> both the new MVP-2 architecture and the Roo's approach.
>
> Please feel free to comment, especially with any real world app
> experience using the new MVP-2 architecture, was it really worth the
> trouble?
>
> Thanks,
> Joseph
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
No comments:
Post a Comment