GWT + GILEAD OR REQUEST FACTORY?

[bond]

Hi,
actually I'm using gwt 2.1.1 with hibernate and gilead. Gilead is very
comfortable because I don't have to create DTO class for my domain.
I would like an opinion on the new system "RequestFactory" compared
with Gilead. What do you recommend?

Thanks very much

Best regards

Daniele

[Richard Berger]

FWIW, I made the switch from Gilead to RequestFactory and was pleased
with the outcome. I am sure that both will work fine, but I seem to
recall fewer setup/configuration issues with RequestFactory. Gilead
is wonderful, but perhaps because RequestFactory is "built-in" it is a
little easier to get started with.

RB

[George Georgovassilis]

Hi Richard,

Sorry to hijack this thread (I promise I'll be quiet after that:-).
Since I've not yet had the chance to write any code with the
RequestFactory, I am still curious about the http payload size. For
example, what I didn't like with RPC was that it included the full
qualified class names in the serialized payload which imo could have
been avoided and bloats up the payload. How does that look like with
RequestFactory's payload?

[Thomas Broyer]

On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:51:59 PM UTC+1, George Georgovassilis wrote:

Hi Richard,

Sorry to hijack this thread (I promise I'll be quiet after that:-).
Since I've not yet had the chance to write any code with the
RequestFactory, I am still curious about the http payload size. For
example, what I didn't like with RPC was that it included the full
qualified class names in the serialized payload which imo could have
been avoided and bloats up the payload.

It can be avoided using a simple <inherit name='com.google.gwt.user.RemoteServiceObfuscateTypeNames' />

 

How does that look like with RequestFactory's payload?

It's generally lighter, but as of GWT 2.1.1 there's still no way to obfuscate the type names (contrary to GWT-RPC, RF is designed to work with different "versions" of the app on the clients and servers; you don't have to redeploy your server code if you only change your client code –even if you change your proxies and service stubs– and vice versa, making sure your clients refresh their page, –even if you change your domain objects–)

See http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5729

[George Georgovassilis]

Wow, thanks a lot :-)

On 11.01.2011 19:45, Thomas Broyer wrote:

On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:51:59 PM UTC+1, George Georgovassilis wrote:

Hi Richard,

Sorry to hijack this thread (I promise I'll be quiet after that:-).
Since I've not yet had the chance to write any code with the
RequestFactory, I am still curious about the http payload size. For
example, what I didn't like with RPC was that it included the full
qualified class names in the serialized payload which imo could have
been avoided and bloats up the payload.

It can be avoided using a simple <inherit name='com.google.gwt.user.RemoteServiceObfuscateTypeNames' />

�

How does that look like with RequestFactory's payload?

It's generally lighter, but as of GWT 2.1.1 there's still no way to obfuscate the type names (contrary to GWT-RPC, RF is designed to work with different "versions" of the app on the clients and servers; you don't have�to redeploy your server code if you only change your client code �even if you change your proxies and service stubs� and vice versa, making sure your clients refresh their page, �even if you change your domain objects�)

See�http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5729

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.

[bond]

Thanks to all for your replies!!

On 12 Gen, 00:01, George Georgovassilis <g.georgovassi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wow, thanks a lot :-)
>
> On 11.01.2011 19:45, Thomas Broyer wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:51:59 PM UTC+1, George Georgovassilis
> > wrote:
>
> >     Hi Richard,
>
> >     Sorry to hijack this thread (I promise I'll be quiet after that:-).
> >     Since I've not yet had the chance to write any code with the
> >     RequestFactory, I am still curious about the http payload size. For
> >     example, what I didn't like with RPC was that it included the full
> >     qualified class names in the serialized payload which imo could have
> >     been avoided and bloats up the payload.
>
> > It can be avoided using a simple <inherit
> > name='com.google.gwt.user.RemoteServiceObfuscateTypeNames

> > <http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...>'
> > />

>
> >     How does that look like with RequestFactory's payload?
>
> > It's generally lighter, but as of GWT 2.1.1 there's still no way to
> > obfuscate the type names (contrary to GWT-RPC, RF is designed to work
> > with different "versions" of the app on the clients and servers; you

> > don't *have* to redeploy your server code if you only change your

> > client code �even if you change your proxies and service stubs� and
> > vice versa, making sure your clients refresh their page, �even if you
> > change your domain objects�)

> > Seehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=5729