GWT's servlet implementation has onBefore/onAfterDeserialization which would give me a hook with which to start and stop transactions without doing anything fancy, however those methods don't allow me to properly check for error conditions after the service method got invoked, I just have access to the serialized return value, not directly to any exception that might have been thrown, so deciding whether to roll back or not is not possible that way without rewriting parts the GWT servlet.
I was thinking about using aspectj's compile-time weaving. However, this does not work with Netbeans' compile-on-save feature because the module needs to be recompiled using the aspectj compiler.
How about LTW (load-time-weaving)? Is there any way (or example) to add LTW to the webapp container without using the Spring framework?
I was also thinking about using AOP based on Java dynamic proxies, ie. to put a proxy in front of the servlet. Again, the question arises how to tell the Jetty WebApp container to load the proxy instead of the original servlet.
Or is there any ready-to-use solution out there already?
I think you could overwrite a combination of
public String processCall(RPCRequest rpcRequest) from RemoteServiceServlet and RPC.invokeAndEncodeResponse to do what you want.
Not ideal, as you need to copy/paste a few lines of code, but they really are only a few.
I myself hit the same problems as I needed some customizations, and relevant methods didn't had the access modifier that I needed, so I ended up copy/pasting some portions.
I can't comment on the rest of your question, but I don't expect to find any ready-to-use solutions, as GWT-RPC doesn't seem to have any new fans out there; just people maintaining legacy systems. Therefore, I expect that you either don't find anything or find solutions that are no longer maintained.
From the below link I understood that GWT supporting only a subset of classes or methods in the following package in client side.
java.lang
java.lang.annotation
java.util
java.io
java.sql
https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/doc/1.6/RefJreEmulation#Package_java_lang
Why is it so?
I think it make more problem in development because I am using only GWT client and using REST Web service instead of server.
Is there any new release of jar like gwtx (new release for supporting persistence,annotation etc) for using all classes and methods in the above packages.
and my main doubt is why they are not supporting all?
To support translating Java to JavaScript, every standard class has to be emulated, i.e. recreated in such a way that the GWT compiler knows how to translate it to JavaScript. An ArrayList for instance is based around a JavaScript Array, String methods have to be emulated on top of a JavaScript String, etc.
And there are things that are simply impossible to emulate (files, sockets). A few other things are not emulated on-purpose, because the emulated version, while technically possible, would be much less performant than a more direct mapping of the browser APIs, and GWT strives for performance (third-party libraries, such as GWTx, can provide such emulations if needed) more than compatibility (the choice of Java as the language was primarily to leverage tooling, not provide a compatibility layer to allow reuse of existing libraries).
Finally, reflection is not supported as it would make it impossible for the compiler to prune dead code and do all its optimizations: how would it know that a particular class, field or method is not actually used by reflection rather than direct calls?
I'm thinking about a platform-neutral (i.e. not .NET MEF) technique of implementing chain-of-responsibliity pattern using web services as the handlers. I want to be able to add more CoR handlers by deploying new services and not compiling new CoR code, just change configuration info. It seems the challenge will be managing the metadata about available handlers and ensuring the handlers are conforming to the interface.
My question: any ideas on how I can safely ensure:
1. The web services are implementing the interface
2. The web services are implementing the base class behavior, like calling the successor
Because, in compiled code, I can have type-safety and therefore know that any handlers have derived from the abstract base class that ensures the interface and behavior I want. That seems to be missing in the world of services.
This seems like a valid question, but a rather simple one.
You are still afforded the protection of the typing system, even if you are loading code later, at runtime, that the original code never saw before.
I would think the preferred approach here would be to have something like a properties file with a list of implementers (your chain). Then in the code, you are going to have to have a way to instantiate an instance of each handler at runtime to construct the chain. When you construct the instance, you will have to check its type. In Java, for instance, that would take the form of instanceof (abomination ordinarily, but you get a pass for loading scenarios), or isAssignableFrom. In Objective C, it's conformsToProtocol.
If it doesn't, it can't be used and you can spit an error out to the console.
Does anyone know where is a good example of GWT application with non-Java backend? Something like the "Contacts" application on the official pages of GWT. I'm interested in the following topics specifically (this is how I see the "back" part of the application, but it may be different, of course):
DTO serialization.
Communication layer (the very back one). Should it use generics and work with any abstract DTO? Is there any other proven approach?
Service layer, which uses the communication layer with specific DTOs.
Requests caching. Should it be implemended on the service or communication level?
Good abstraction. So we can easily substitute any parts for testing and other purposes, like using different serializators (e. g. XML, JSON), different servers' behaviors when managing user sessions (URL might change once the user is logged in).
I know, there are many similar topics here, but I haven't found one, which is focused on the structure of the client part.
Use REST on both sides. PHP/Python REST server-side. GWT client-side.
Don't use GWT-RPC.
The following gives a guideline for Java-java REST, but there is leeway to move out of server-side Java. It explains why REST is appropriate.
http://h2g2java.blessedgeek.com/2011/11/gwt-with-jax-rs-aka-rpcrest-part-0.html.
REST is an industry established pattern (Google. Yahoo, in fact every stable-minded establishment deploys REST services).
REST is abstracted as a HTTP level data structure. Which Java, PHP and Python have established libraries to comply to ensure DTO integrity.
Communication layer (the very back one). Should it use generics ???
Don't understand the question or why the question exists. Just use the REST pattern to provide integrity to non-homogeneous language between server and client and to HTTP request/response.
If you are using Java at back-end, there is no escape from using generics. Generics saves code. But using generics extensively needs programmer to have equally extensive visual capacity to visualise the generics. If your back-end is on PHP or Python, are there generics for PHP? Python generics? Might as well stay in Java land or C# land and forget about Java-free service provider.
Did you mean DTO polymorphism? Don't try polymorphism or decide on it until after you have established your service. Then adaptively and with agility introduce polymorphism into your DTOs if you really see the need. But try to avoid it because with JSON data interchange, it gets rather confusing between server and client. Especially if they don't speak the same programming language.
If you are asking HTTP level generics? I don't know of any framework, not SOAP, not REST where you could have generics carried by the XML or JSON. Is there? Generics?
Service layer? REST.
Requests caching? Cache at every appropriate opportunity. Have service-provider cache query results for items common and static to all sessions like menu, menu/drop-down box choices, labels, etc. Cache your history and places.
On GWT side cache records so that forward/backward button will not trigger inadvertent query. Use MVP pattern and history to manage history traversal that might trigger redisplay of info.
If you are talking about unified info abstraction, you should start your project with JAX-RS to define/test the API and perform data abstraction. Without performing any business logic.
Then, once your HTTP-level APIs andDTOs are defined, convert server-side to using language of your choice to proceed to write more complex code.
BTW, I don't dig your terminology "Backend".
We normally use the terminology client-side for service consumer, server-side for service provider, backend for data repository/persistence access, mid-tier or middle-ware for intervening/auxiliary software required to provide mathematical/scientific/graphical analysis/synthesis.
If our terminologies did not coincide, I probably answered this question wrong.
I am trying to figure out if I should migrate my gwt-rpc calls to the new GWT2.1 RequestFactory cals.
Google documentation vaguely mentions that RequestFactory is a better client-server communication method for "data-oriented services"
What I can distill from the documentation is that there is a new Proxy class that simplifies the communication (you don't pass back and forth the actual entity but just the proxy, so it is lighter weight and easier to manage)
Is that the whole point or am I missing something else in the big picture?
The big difference between GWT RPC and RequestFactory is that the RPC system is "RPC-by-concrete-type" while RequestFactory is "RPC-by-interface".
RPC is more convenient to get started with, because you write fewer lines of code and use the same class on both the client and the server. You might create a Person class with a bunch of getters and setters and maybe some simple business logic for further slicing-and-dicing of the data in the Person object. This works quite well until you wind up wanting to have server-specific, non-GWT-compatible, code inside your class. Because the RPC system is based on having the same concrete type on both the client and the server, you can hit a complexity wall based on the capabilities of your GWT client.
To get around the use of incompatible code, many users wind up creating a peer PersonDTO that shadows the real Person object used on the server. The PersonDTO just has a subset of the getters and setters of the server-side, "domain", Person object. Now you have to write code that marshalls data between the Person and PersonDTO object and all other object types that you want to pass to the client.
RequestFactory starts off by assuming that your domain objects aren't going to be GWT-compatible. You simply declare the properties that should be read and written by the client code in a Proxy interface, and the RequestFactory server components take care of marshaling the data and invoking your service methods. For applications that have a well-defined concept of "Entities" or "Objects with identity and version", the EntityProxy type is used to expose the persistent identity semantics of your data to the client code. Simple objects are mapped using the ValueProxy type.
With RequestFactory, you pay an up-front startup cost to accommodate more complicated systems than GWT RPC easily supports. RequestFactory's ServiceLayer provides significantly more hooks to customize its behavior by adding ServiceLayerDecorator instances.
I went through a transition from RPC to RF. First I have to say my experience is limited in that, I used as many EntityProxies as 0.
Advantages of GWT RPC:
It's very easy to set-up, understand and to LEARN!
Same class-based objects are used on the client and on the server.
This approach saves tons of code.
Ideal, when the same model objects (and POJOS) are used on either client and server, POJOs == MODEL OBJECTs == DTOs
Easy to move stuff from the server to client.
Easy to share implementation of common logic between client and server (this can turn out as a critical disadvantage when you need a different logic).
Disadvatages of GWT RPC:
Impossible to have different implementation of some methods for server and client, e.g. you might need to use different logging framework on client and server, or different equals method.
REALLY BAD implementation that is not further extensible: most of the server functionality is implemented as static methods on a RPC class. THAT REALLY SUCKS.
e.g. It is impossible to add server-side errors obfuscation
Some security XSS concerns that are not quite elegantly solvable, see docs (I am not sure whether this is more elegant for RequestFactory)
Disadvantages of RequestFactory:
REALLY HARD to understand from the official doc, what's the merit of it! It starts right at completely misleading term PROXIES - these are actually DTOs of RF that are created by RF automatically. Proxies are defined by interfaces, e.g. #ProxyFor(Journal.class). IDE checks if there exists corresponding methods on Journal. So much for the mapping.
RF will not do much for you in terms of commonalities of client and server because
On the client you need to convert "PROXIES" to your client domain objects and vice-versa. This is completely ridiculous. It could be done in few lines of code declaratively, but there's NO SUPPORT FOR THAT! If only we could map our domain objects to proxies more elegantly, something like JavaScript method JSON.stringify(..,,) is MISSING in RF toolbox.
Don't forget you are also responsible for setting transferable properties of your domain objects to proxies, and so on recursively.
POOR ERROR HANDLING on the server and - Stack-traces are omitted by default on the server and you re getting empty useless exceptions on the client. Even when I set custom error handler, I was not able to get to low-level stack traces! Terrible.
Some minor bugs in IDE support and elsewhere. I filed two bug requests that were accepted. Not an Einstein was needed to figure out that those were actually bugs.
DOCUMENTATION SUCKS. As I mentioned proxies should be better explained, the term is MISLEADING. For the basic common problems, that I was solving, DOCS IS USELESS. Another example of misunderstanding from the DOC is connection of JPA annotations to RF. It looks from the succinct docs that they kinda play together, and yes, there is a corresponding question on StackOverflow. I recommend to forget any JPA 'connection' before understanding RF.
Advantages of RequestFactory
Excellent forum support.
IDE support is pretty good (but is not an advantage in contrast with RPC)
Flexibility of your client and server implementation (loose coupling)
Fancy stuff, connected to EntityProxies, beyond simple DTOs - caching, partial updates, very useful for mobile.
You can use ValueProxies as the simplest replacement for DTOs (but you have to do all not so fancy conversions yourself).
Support for Bean Validations JSR-303.
Considering other disadvantages of GWT in general:
Impossible to run integration tests (GWT client code + remote server) with provided JUnit support <= all JSNI has to be mocked (e.g. localStorage), SOP is an issue.
No support for testing setup - headless browser + remote server <= no simple headless testing for GWT, SOP.
Yes, it is possible to run selenium integration tests (but that's not what I want)
JSNI is very powerful, but at those shiny talks they give at conferences they do not talk much about that writing JSNI codes has some also some rules. Again, figuring out how to write a simple callback was a task worth of true researcher.
In summary, transition from GWT RPC to RequestFactory is far from WIN-WIN situation,
when RPC mostly fits your needs. You end up writing tons conversions from client domain objects to proxies and vice-versa. But you get some flexibility and robustness of your solution. And support on the forum is excellent, on Saturday as well!
Considering all advantages and disadvantages I just mentioned, it pays really well to think in advance whether any of these approaches actually brings improvement to your solution and to your development set-up without big trade-offs.
I find the idea of creating Proxy classes for all my entities quite annoying. My Hibernate/JPA pojos are auto-generated from the database model. Why do I now need to create a second mirror of those for RPC? We have a nice "estivation" framework that takes care of "de-hibernating" the pojos.
Also, the idea of defining service interfaces that don't quite implement the server side service as a java contract but do implement the methods - sounds very J2EE 1.x/2.x to me.
Unlike RequestFactory which has poor error handling and testing capabilities (since it processes most of the stuff under the hood of GWT), RPC allows you to use a more service oriented approach. RequestFactory implements a more modern dependency injection styled approach that can provide a useful approach if you need to invoke complex polymorphic data structures. When using RPC your data structures will need to be more flat, as this will allow your marshaling utilities to translate between your json/xml and java models. Using RPC also allows you to implement more robust architecture, as quoted from the gwt dev section on Google's website.
"Simple Client/Server Deployment
The first and most straightforward way to think of service definitions is to treat them as your application's entire back end. From this perspective, client-side code is your "front end" and all service code that runs on the server is "back end." If you take this approach, your service implementations would tend to be more general-purpose APIs that are not tightly coupled to one specific application. Your service definitions would likely directly access databases through JDBC or Hibernate or even files in the server's file system. For many applications, this view is appropriate, and it can be very efficient because it reduces the number of tiers.
Multi-Tier Deployment
In more complex, multi-tiered architectures, your GWT service definitions could simply be lightweight gateways that call through to back-end server environments such as J2EE servers. From this perspective, your services can be viewed as the "server half" of your application's user interface. Instead of being general-purpose, services are created for the specific needs of your user interface. Your services become the "front end" to the "back end" classes that are written by stitching together calls to a more general-purpose back-end layer of services, implemented, for example, as a cluster of J2EE servers. This kind of architecture is appropriate if you require your back-end services to run on a physically separate computer from your HTTP server."
Also note that setting up a single RequestFactory service requires creating around 6 or so java classes where as RPC only requires 3. More code == more errors and complexity in my book.
RequestFactory also has a little bit more overhead during the request processing, as it has to marshal serialization between the data proxies and actual java models. This added interface adds extra processing cycles which can really add up in an enterprise or production environment.
I also do not believe that RequestFactory services are serialization like RPC services.
All in all after using both for some time now, i always go with RPC as its more lightweight, easier to test and debug, and faster then using a RequestFactory. Although RequestFactory might be more elegant and extensible then its RPC counter part. The added complexity does not make it a better tool necessary.
My opinion is that the best architecture is to use two web apps , one client and one server. The server is a simple lightweight generic java webapp that uses the servlet.jar library. The client is GWT. You make RESTful request via GWT-RPC into the server side of the client web application. The server side of the client is just a pass though to apache http client which uses a persistant tunnel into the request handler you have running as a single servlet in your server servlet web application. The servlet web application should contain your database application layer (hibernate, cayenne, sql etc..) This allows you to fully divorce the database object models from the actual client providing a much more extensible and robust way to develop and unit test your application. Granted it requires a tad bit of initial setup time, but in the end allows you to create a dynamic request factory sitting outside of GWT. This allows you to leverage the best of both worlds. Not to mention being able to test and make changes to your server side without having to have the gwt client compiled or build.
I think it's really helpful if you have a heavy pojo on the client side, for example if you use Hibernate or JPA entities.
We adopted another solution, using a Django style persistence framework with very light entities.
The only caveat I would put in is that RequestFactory uses the binary data transport (deRPC maybe?) and not the normal GWT-RPC.
This only matters if you are doing heavy testing with SyncProxy, Jmeter, Fiddler, or any similar tool that can read/evaluate the contents of the HTTP request/response (like GWT-RPC), but would be more challenging with deRPC or RequestFactory.
We have have a very large implementation of GWT-RPC in our project.
Actually we have 50 Service interfaces with many methods each, and we have problems with the size of TypeSerializers generated by the compiler that turns our JS code huge.
So we are analizing to move towards RequestFactory.
I have been read for a couple of days digging into the web and trying to find what other people are doing.
The most important drawback I saw, and maybe I could be wrong, is that with RequestFactory your are no longer in control of the communication between your Server Domain objects and your client ones.
What we need is apply the load / save pattern in a controlled way. I mean, for example client receive the whole object graph of objects belonging to a specific transaction, do his updates and them send the whole back to the server. The server will be responsible for doing validation, compare old with new values and do persistance. If 2 users from different sites gets the same transaction and do some updates, the resulting transaction shouldn't be the merged one. One of the updates should fail in my scenario.
I don't see that RequestFactory helps supporting this kind of processing.
Regards
Daniel
Is it fair to say that when considering a limited MIS application, say with 10-20 CRUD'able business objects, and each with ~1-10 properties, that really it's down to personal preference which route to go with?
If so, then perhaps projecting how your application is going to scale could be the key in choosing your route GWT RPC or RequestFactory:
My application is expected to stay with that relatively limited number of entities but will massively increase in terms of their numbers. 10-20 objects * 100,000 records.
My application is going to increase significantly in the breadth of entities but the relative numbers involved of each will remain low. 5000 objects * 100 records.
My application is expected to stay with that relatively limited number of entities AND will stay in relatively low numbers of e.g. 10-20 objects * 100 records
In my case, I'm at the very starting point of trying to make this decision. Further complicated by having to change UI client side architecture as well as making the transport choice. My previous (significantly) large scale GWT UI used the Hmvc4Gwt library, which has been superseded by the GWT MVP facilities.