On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:28:53 PM UTC+2, tanteanni wrote:
my confusion is raising?! (did someone read my "answer"? i kindly ask that someone may pay attention to it)
thomas i don't know if i understand the relation (i it exists) between MVP and places and activitie? "It'd be in most case a brad practice..." does this mean that is bad practice if places and activities don't have an relation to MVP in an given application? (and how does this relate to " Activities however are in no way related to MVP"?).
at the moment i see an activity as an 3rd place to put logic in: "part1" says put all logic in presenter, "part2" says at some (use) cases logic in view is ok(is this: gwt discussion such a use case?), jens and thomas say history/state logic could be sperated from presenter and put into activity ??
(besides how good is the the history handling of part1 ? is "at least" this part out of date and it is better to use places and activities?)
For anything "history related", I highly recommend using places. For "compositing your screen", based on the current "place", I highly recommend using activities.
I highly recommend using MVP too (using the "part 2" approach, where the presenter knows the view, and the views knows the presenter in return), where your activities will be your presenters; but activities and MVP are different concepts.
Shameless plug:
- Places:
- http://tbroyer.posterous.com/gwt-21-places
- http://tbroyer.posterous.com/gwt-21-places-part-ii
- Activities:
- http://tbroyer.posterous.com/gwt-21-activities
- http://tbroyer.posterous.com/gwt-21-activities-nesting-yagni
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