Re: what kind of MVP to use, what is "current" best practice

On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:32:47 PM UTC+2, ernesto.reig wrote:

But Thomas, there´s something I don´t understand, when you say "Activities however are in no way related to MVP". Activities are the Presenters in the MVP pattern, I mean, they own the views and there happens the logic decoupling. The views talk/notify the Activities when some user action that needs logic happens. Activities are responsible to talk to the server, send and retrieve data, goto() other Place´s, and therefore keeping the views "dumb". So, when you say that Activities are not related to MVP I can only think that I´m missing something...

Could you please shed a bit of light on this? :)

That's generally how you'll do it, but nothing in the Activity contract enforces it. Need a proof? Here it is in 15 LOCs:

public class ActivityWithoutMvp extends AbstractActivity {

  @Override

  public void start(AcceptsOneWidget panel, EventBus eventBus) {

    FlowPanel container = new FlowPanel();

    final TextBox textBox = new TextBox();

    container.add(textBox);

    container.add(new Button("Say hello!", new ClickHandler() {

      @Override

      public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {

        Window.alert("Hello " + textBox.getText() + "!");

      }

    }));

    panel.setWidget(container);

  }

}

You could also extend, say, Composite while implementing the Activity interface. That'd work too.

It'd be in most case a brad practice as it violates the "separation of concerns" pattern, but for very simple activities (such as the above) I think it's OK not to use MVP.

--
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.