RPC payload question: Why use fully qualified class names?

[Alex Epshteyn]

Hi guys,

I'm sorry I'm not up-to-date on recent GWT development efforts, but
does the current version of the GWT-RPC serialization scheme still use
fully qualified class names in the payload string? (e.g.
com.example.foo.Foo in the method signature part of the payload, and
then again as com.example.foo.Foo/12345 in the argument part of the
payload.

If so, then I bet payload sizes can be reduced dramatically by using a
lookup table for class names. I'd be willing to work on a patch of
this.

Once again, I apologize if this has already been addressed (my company
still uses GWT 1.5).

Thanks,
Alex

[Thomas Broyer]

There's a com.google.gwt.user.RemoteServiceObfuscateTypeNames module since GWT 2.0; I guess it'll do what you're asking for.