Group items tagged

Ray Ryan - These posts are right on the money, Thomas. I think you hit the problem with this approach too: you still need nested Place objects, and those are a nuisance to make. E.g., in a master detail you might need to record both the page of the master list that is showing as well as which detail set. Maybe the thing to do is add a CompositePlace to GWT?Sep 14

Ray Ryan - The idea is that parents are an optical illusion. There is an activity that knows how to show lists of things. There is another that knows how to show details. In one arrangement of your app they may be on the screen at the same time. In another (*cough* mobile *cough*), they aren't. They really shouldn't know about each other.Sep 14

the key concept here is that an Activity can be a Presenter but a Presenter is not necessarily an activity.Oct 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spamRay Ryan - Exactly: not every presenter needs to bother being an activity.Oct

Activities are more tied to the concept of Places than of MVP, i.e. navigation and user experience rather than code structure ("developer experience").

I believe the reason we've not created View and Presenter interfaces to date is because there are two different styles of MVP widely in use, only one of which allows the view to call the presenter as in your example. Which leaves us in the funny position that the new MVP framework is missing *formal* definitions of View and Presenter. Personally, I think it's a good thing that GWT Activities and Places are independent of views and presenters so as not to force you into one model. I think View and Presenter as you've described would fall in the category of things that are not quite core code, but are nevertheless useful abstractions that probably need a home in the GWT source somewhere for reference. We'll chew on this a bit for 2.1.1...

The kinds of changes to Activities and Places we're contemplating for future versions of GWT are primarily along the lines of using annotations and generators to automate the creation of PlaceTokenizers and ActivityMappers, for example. We're not talking about wholesale replacement, as we strive for API backward compatibility with each release.

there's absolutely nothing in GWT proper related to MVP actually; I refuse to call Activities an "MVP framework", it has nothing to do with MVP in my opinion

try to disconnect activities from MVP: Activities don't force you to do MVP, and you'll use MVP beyond Activities.

> 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.