james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From echo <echo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: cope with the RequestFactory's find*
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:21:07 GMT
Hi Manolo,
I looked the [3]rd link and the conversation between you and  tbroyer you
shared. I have to say again and learn your hi-efficiency that we could do
so many things in one day.
I am sure I can not just benefit much more than programming and
communication skills, but also many others from the list in only several
months.

Thanks.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino
<manolo@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi echo,
> you were right when you said that client and server could not share the
> same class, it is because a bug in gwt [1][2].
> I have sent a patch to gwt which is pending on review [3], in the
> meanwhile you can use the patched class.
>
> I have modified the rf example I sent, and I have committed it to your
> apache-extras project [4]. You can see that all code share the same class
> (Subject in this example), and there is a SubjectLocator responsible of
> instantiating the appropriate implementation.
>
> [1] http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=7509
> [2] http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5762
> [3] http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1764804/
> [4]
> https://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/hupa-evo/experiments/rf-patched
>
> - Manolo
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <
> manolo@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have committed to the apache-extras repository a very simple project
>> with everything set to use value-proxies.
>> It could work fine as the basis of how hupa can use them.
>>
>> just check it out and run:
>> svn co
>> http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/hupa-evo/experiments/rf
>> cd rf
>> mvn test
>> mvn gwt:run
>>
>> - Manolo
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Manuel Carrasco Moñino <
>> manolo@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi echo,
>>>
>>> Actually the mail server is our datasource, and we get from it very few
>>> type of objects, just folders and messages.
>>>
>>> Folders and messages are not entities in the traditional sense of the
>>> concept because normally they do not change, so I would not use entities
>>> but values.
>>>
>>> It is pretty easier deal with valueproxies instead of entityproxies
>>> because the first one have less constrains.
>>>
>>> I would create an interface for each value, and I would use this
>>> interface as the valueproxy in the client. In the server side I would
>>> implement the valueproxy interface in the valueimplementation class. It
>>> have to work because I have used this approach some time.
>>>
>>> Said that, we need just one service class (or many depending of code
>>> readability) to interact with the server side.
>>>
>>> About caching, I think we have to do it in either client or server side
>>> or even in both. If we use value proxies it make it  easier because we can
>>> serialize/deserialize anywhere without worrying about versions etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Manolo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM, echo <echowdx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For there,
>>>>
>>>>> Some examples I have studied, while there is not a good idea about how
>>>>> to implement the find* method.
>>>>> I'v got a little confuse about the how to define our system's
>>>>> EntityManager.
>>>>> I will look more into the RF and hope to get a good approach to solve
>>>>> this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> We could treat the mail server as the datasource, I think, and the
>>>> folders and messages can be seen as data like what you've referred earlier.
>>>> However, do you think both of them need to be cached, otherwise it will
>>>> very slow retrieve data from mail server over and over again.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *echo*
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
*echo*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message