For your convenience, here is the net of it. With MVC, the model is thick with business rules and glue code to a data access layer. The view has lots of dependencies on the model. The controller is usually a framework component driven by some kind of configuration, usually XML based. With MVP, the model is lightweight POJOs. The view is mockable. It is the presenter that is heavy with glue code and business rules. The thinking here is that MVP is more suited for TDD than MVC. Another notable feature of MVP in GWT apps is the use of an event bus instead of hard coded event handler dependencies. Typically, that event bus is implemented as either the HandlerManager from GWT itself or the PropertyChangeSupport class from the GWTx library.

In our app, in effect, each "parent presenter" also plays the role of "app controller"; but because we have the presenter/view dichotomy, the view exposes setSomeWidget(...) methods that the presenter calls; e.g. setHeader(...), setBody(...), setFooter(...).

> 3- what do you think of "presenter.go(container)" ? We do it the other way around: our presenters have a getView() method and the parent calls container.add((Widget) child.getView()). This is actually split between the presenter and the view, see above: view.setHeader(childPresenter.getView()) in the presenter, and containerWidget.add((Widget) child) in the view. The only "issue" with presenter.go(container) is that container must be a "simple" container, which means that when it's meant to be a dock (layout) panel, tab panel, or some other complex panel (or an absolute panel and you want to add with coordinates), you actually have to add a SimplePanel first and pass it as the "container" to the go() method. Otherwise, I can't see a problem with presenter.go(container).

navigation/ > history token inside multiple IF statements ? I'm using a very similar approach as the one in bikeshed: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/bikes...

> 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.