Group items tagged

> 2- when google wants to address problem of Nested/Layered presenters ? > header/body/footer, and body having its own dockpanellayout structure. We use the technique described in part II. Composite views are responsible for instantiating their own children, and making them available for the parallel composite presenters.

If you're referring to the ColumnDefinitions, we know they'll scale. One, it requires minimal widget overhead and is fast. No more embedding hundreds of widgets within a table. Two, it's extensible, and testable. As your model grows, your ColumnDefinitions grow, not your views.  ColumnDefinitions are quite trivial, the bulk of the code dedicated to generating HTML, and don't require a GwtTestCase.

originally the MVP pattern was design for separating the view from its logic and the model it is displaying (as the MVC). Since the arriving of UIBinder I found the word View misused. Actually, strictly speaking the View is contained in the ui.xml file and the "Controller" is the corresponding java file which is implementing the corresponding logic and instanciation. This file merely represents a kind of Controller. The Presenter used in this tutorial is (for me) nothing more than a ControllerProvider which enable the ability to provide differents implementations of the view logic. What I'm founding strange is the fact that their are using the same acronym (MVP) for two differents approaches :  - first one was Presenter centered as the abstraction was done on Display and aggregation were done against the presenter  - second one was Display AND Presenter centered as the abstraction is done on Presenter and Display the both referencing each other. But this approach is mainly due to the fact that UIBinder is removing a lot of boiler plate code from event handling (and first MVP tutorial was not using it), but in the same way UIBinder tends people to adapt the original MVP pattern to be able to use all its power ! That why there is so much reflexion to mix UIBinder and MVP together.

Databinding is about making two properties in sync. The target property could be a JPA entity, but also another widget property. From a Databinding framework perspective, a JPA entity object of any RPC interface should not be tied to the framework.

The intent is that ValueBox? would also be useful for data binding of plain old client side JavaBeans?, without any need for the Id and Property classes. I can define a ValueBox? interface tied to a set of bean classes and have it move their fields to and from HasValue? instances, enforcing validations in the process. I can set up this binding myself via calls like valueBox.setSubcription(bean, fieldNameString). Or I can GWT.create an EditorSupport? object to make those calls for me (which is why they didn't appear in the sketch).

Re: why re-invent a wheel, we want our new data backed widgets to play very nice in an asynchronous world — I'll tell you what values I want, you push them into me when they show up, and as they get updated. My impression of the existing frameworks is that they don't play naturally in that world.

Clients of ValueStore subscribe to particular Properties of particular Ids, and values and validation errors are pushed into them asynchronously as they become available. Typically the code to set up these subscriptions is generated around UiBinder templates.

In a nutshell: RequestFactory is a scheme for referring to server side entities via Id and Property objects. It relies upon ValueStore, which is a more general system for dealing with data binding and client side validation in general.

Yeah, the one problem with UiBinder and MVP is this pattern collision.... UiBinder says, "view are directly attached to views". MVP says, "view's are attached to presenters, if you want to chain views the presenters control this". Consequently, you can't get UiBinder to create your @UiFields (i.e. empty constructor) and you can't get Gin to @Inject them into the view either... because they are in the presenter. Unless of course you use @Named+Singleton bindings in Gin and then both presenter and view will be injected with the same object. This is the one bit of boilerplate we're still writing.

I looked into that, and (unless I'm wrong), I think that @UiField(provided=true) will cause the UiBinder to look in the .ui.xml file for argument to satisfy Foo. In my case I am trying to "inject" an EventBus into the widget, not a visual element.

Start moving the code of addStock to the view. Try not to use widget code on the presenter. Then create an interface and implement in the presenter: class SomeViewHandlers {     void deleteStock(Stock code); } You already have the deleteStock method... so just add "implements SomeViewHandlers" to it. Then you need to give to the display that interface (generally in the constructor): display.setViewHandlers(this); Then in the presenter lease the method as: private void addStock(JsArray<Stock> stocks) { display.addStock(stocks); } And in the view copyPaste the code of the method and change this:  removeButton.addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {        @Override        public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {          *viewHandlers.*deleteStock(code);        }      });

First, though, I think you shouldn't call it MVP. In my opinion it seems that what you're doing is MVC where the model is helped out by RPC. There is already so much variety in the meanings of this (MVP, MVC, etc...), especially with Activities and Request Factory coming into the picture that terminology is becoming important. Not because I don't know what you're describing, but because someone new to the frameworks will get thoroughly confused.