wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a simple best-practise question.
>
> We are using GWT 2.1, mappers, activities and views. Everything works nicely.
>
> But sometimes we want to use activities (aka presenters) and views
> without a mapper. We could switch from an activity back to good old
> presenter and a custom view interface that exposes eg. "Widget
> asWidget()" or so.
>
> But we could also stick to activities and their start(...) method. Of
> course the activity would not be managed and would have no life cycle.
> On the other hand it would be only a single programming model and we
> would not need to define our own view interface.
I don't understand that last bit. Activities don't define any "view
interface" (Activity != MVP, contrary to what the doc says); any
Widget implements IsWidget.
> Does anybody have an advice how to handle that "best"?
If you go with the "Activity model", developers will expect their life-
cycle to be respected, which means adding tests that your "container"
is not breaking it.
If you don't use Activity, it'll be clear for the developer that the
life-cycle is different.
Other than the life-cycle though, I can't find any difference between
the two approaches.
--
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