…until you try introducing a "tab layout" into the game… because tabs, by definition, break linear navigation, so they oviously don't play well with "browser history" and "global application state".
thats hard. my idea was, that the tabs are the main navigation - used to switch between apps/main subjects. my idea was to let this tabs be bookmarkable and probably safe some state for each tabs (a main choice the user has taken). (this idea is not too bad, isnt it?)
but now you say tabs and activities and places are incompatible? ok i read a thread about this issue on stackoverflow - the guy facing the problem created his own tabPanel :-|. so the rule is "don't use tabs (as navigation points in sense of places) or don't use activities and places"?
let us a moment assume i get rid of my tabs. there will be still switchable "main areas" - that will be my places?! but the hard question now arise: each main area has several display areas (info, content, user choice...) - in terms of "PV" i would say -- each one gets an presenter/view pair?! "but in "Activities are a way to *handle* navigation"-terms i would say the hole main area is only one activity (because there is no navigation between display areas). (please comment if this is bullshit)
the good thing about this understanding is that the terms "place" and "activity" are used in a sense i understand them.
But to get an MVP Pattern around it i can't map activity=presenter?! i have to map many presenters to activity. first question is: is this an idea worth to think about? or is it probably at least "good practice"?
but now you say tabs and activities and places are incompatible? ok i read a thread about this issue on stackoverflow - the guy facing the problem created his own tabPanel :-|. so the rule is "don't use tabs (as navigation points in sense of places) or don't use activities and places"?
let us a moment assume i get rid of my tabs. there will be still switchable "main areas" - that will be my places?! but the hard question now arise: each main area has several display areas (info, content, user choice...) - in terms of "PV" i would say -- each one gets an presenter/view pair?! "but in "Activities are a way to *handle* navigation"-terms i would say the hole main area is only one activity (because there is no navigation between display areas). (please comment if this is bullshit)
the good thing about this understanding is that the terms "place" and "activity" are used in a sense i understand them.
But to get an MVP Pattern around it i can't map activity=presenter?! i have to map many presenters to activity. first question is: is this an idea worth to think about? or is it probably at least "good practice"?
--
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