In my app I use JsArray extensively to store my overlay types. I use java.util.List to store my client-side Java POJOs.
For performance reasons and to unify the way I access my model I planned to eliminate the Lists and use only JSO wrappers. Given a wrapper around a native array that can store any Java Object:
public class JsArrayObject<T> extends JavaScriptObject {
protected JsArrayObject() {}
public final native T get(int index) /*-{
return this[index];
}-*/;
public final native void push(T value) /*-{
this[this.length] = value;
}-*/;
}
Is it safe to store Java Objects this way? The doc says that when you pass a Java Object into JavaScript the result is "an opaque value accessible through special syntax". This sounds confussing to me. For instance if I push an Integer and try to get it an exception will be thrown because something different than an Object was found (at least in dev mode). The same happens with the rest of Java primitive Wrappers. Apart from the problems with Java primitive Wrappers, are there other concerns to be aware?
Many thanks
Which doc are you referring to? The one on this page?
They're talking in terms of passing Java objects into JavaScript with the intent of having JavaScript code use the methods or fields in the object. It is possible to do that, but the syntax you have to use on the JavaScript side is a bit awkward. If you've done any JSNI, you've seen it.
If you don't intend to access the Java objects from the JavaScript side you can ignore the business about the special syntax. So yes, it is safe. I'd be interested to know if it actually turns out to help performance.
Related
I have the following entity in GWT
#JsType(namespace = "my.entities")
public class MyEntity {
private Set<String> texts;
public Set<String> getTexts(){
if(this.texts==null)
this.texts=new LinkedHashSet<String>();
return this.texts;
}
public void setTexts(Set<String> texts){
this.texts=texts;
}
}
When I call myEntityVar.getTexts() in Javascript the returned object is a HashSet. It seems like jsinterop converts the java implementation of HashSet to JavaScript. But how can I create a new HashSet in JavaScript in order to use myEntityVar.setTexts(texts)? I tried an array for the "texts" param, but that doesn't work. So I somehow need to use HashSet in JavaScript.
However, I can't figure out, where to find it.
Any idea?
The short answer is that you can't - but then again, you also can't create a plain HashSet in JS either!
The reason that this works at all is that you've enabled -generateJsInteropExports, and while there is a JsInterop annotation on your MyEntity type, there is also one on java.util.Set (and a few other base JRE types). This allows for your code to return emulated java Sets without issue - any method which is compatible with running in JS is supported.
There are a few downsides:
Compiled size increases somewhat, since even if you don't use a method, it must be compiled in to your app this way, just in case JS uses it
Some methods are not supported - JS doesn't really have method overloading, so toArray() and toArray(T[]) look like the same method in JS. GWT solves this by not supporting the second method at all. (java.util.List has the same issue with remove(T) and remove(int), but it resolves it by renaming remove(int) to removeAtIndex(int) when compiled.)
If you never return these types, you'll probably want to disable this feature entirely - the -excludeJsInteropExports and -includeJsInteropExports flags to the compiler let you control what is exported.
To answer your question more directly, you have a few options that I can see:
Allow the setTexts method to be passed something else from JS, such as a JsArrayLike so that you could let users pass in a plain JS array of strings, or even a JS Set. You could go further and accept Object, and then type-check it to see what was passed in. You could even leave the Set override so it could be called from your own Java if necessary, but mark it as #JsIgnore so that GWT doesn't break when you attempt to export overloaded methods.
Create a factory method somewhere to create the Set implementation you would like your JS users to use. Since add and remove are supported, the calling JS code can build up the set before passing it in. Something like this:
#JsMethod(namespace = "my.Util")
public static <T> LinkedHashSet<T> createSet() {
return new LinkedHashSet<>();
}
Now they can call my.Util.createSet(), append items, and then pass it to your setTexts method.
I am attempting to call out to parallels.js via JSNI. Parallels provides a nice API around web workers, and I wrote some lightweight wrapper code which provides a more convenient interface to workers from GWT than Elemental. However I'm getting an error which has me stumped:
com.google.gwt.core.client.JavaScriptException: (DataCloneError) #io.mywrapper.workers.Parallel::runParallel([Ljava/lang/String;Lcom/google/gwt/core/client/JavaScriptObject;Lcom/google/gwt/core/client/JavaScriptObject;)([Java object: [Ljava.lang.String;#1922352522, JavaScript object(3006), JavaScript object(3008)]): An object could not be cloned.
This comes from, in hosted mode:
at com.google.gwt.dev.shell.BrowserChannelServer.invokeJavascript(BrowserChannelServer.java:249) at com.google.gwt.dev.shell.ModuleSpaceOOPHM.doInvoke(ModuleSpaceOOPHM.java:136) at com.google.gwt.dev.shell.ModuleSpace.invokeNative(ModuleSpace.java:571) at com.google.gwt.dev.shell.ModuleSpace.invokeNativeVoid(ModuleSpace.java:299) at com.google.gwt.dev.shell.JavaScriptHost.invokeNativeVoid(JavaScriptHost.java:107) at io.mywrapper.workers.Parallel.runParallel(Parallel.java)
Here's my code:
Example client call to create a worker:
Workers.spawnWorker(new String[]{"hello"}, new Worker() {
#Override
public String[] work(String[] data) {
return data;
}
#Override
public void done(String[] data) {
int i = data.length;
}
});
The API that provides a general interface:
public class Workers {
public static void spawnWorker(String[] data, Worker worker) {
Parallel.runParallel(data, workFunction(worker), callbackFunction(worker));
}
/**
* Create a reference to the work function.
*/
public static native JavaScriptObject workFunction(Worker worker) /*-{
return worker == null ? null : $entry(function(x) {
worker.#io.mywrapper.workers.Worker::work([Ljava/lang/String;)(x);
});
}-*/;
/**
* Create a reference to the done function.
*/
public static native JavaScriptObject callbackFunction(Worker worker) /*-{
return worker == null ? null : $entry(function(x) {
worker.#io.mywrapper.workers.Worker::done([Ljava/lang/String;)(x);
});
}-*/;
}
Worker:
public interface Worker extends Serializable {
/**
* Called to perform the work.
* #param data
* #return
*/
public String[] work(String[] data);
/**
* Called with the result of the work.
* #param data
*/
public void done(String[] data);
}
And finally the Parallels wrapper:
public class Parallel {
/**
* #param data Data to be passed to the function
* #param work Function to perform the work, given the data
* #param callback Function to be called with result
* #return
*/
public static native void runParallel(String[] data, JavaScriptObject work, JavaScriptObject callback) /*-{
var p = new $wnd.Parallel(data);
p.spawn(work).then(callback);
}-*/;
}
What's causing this?
The JSNI docs say, regarding arrays:
opaque value that can only be passed back into Java code
This is quite terse, but ultimately my arrays are passed back into Java code, so I assume these are OK.
EDIT - ok, bad assumption. The arrays, despite only ostensibly being passed back to Java code, are causing the error (which is strange, because there's very little googleability on DataCloneError.) Changing them to String works; however, String isn't sufficient for my needs here. Looks like objects face the same kinds of issues as arrays do; I saw Thomas' reference to JSArrayUtils in another StackOverflow thread, but I can't figure out how to call it with an array of strings (it wants an array of JavaScriptObjects as input for non-primitive types, which does me no good.) Is there a neat way out of this?
EDIT 2 - Changed to use JSArrayString wherever I was using String[]. New issue; no stacktrace this time, but in the console I get the error: Uncaught ReferenceError: __gwt_makeJavaInvoke is not defined. When I click on the url to the generated script in developer tools, I get this snippet:
self.onmessage = function(e) {self.postMessage((function (){
try {
return __gwt_makeJavaInvoke(3)(null, 65626, jsFunction, this, arguments);
}
catch (e) {
throw e;
}
})(e.data))}
I see that _gwt_makeJavaInvoke is part of the JSNI class; so why would it not be found?
You can find working example of GWT and WebWorkers here: https://github.com/tomekziel/gwtwwlinker/
This is a preliminary work, but using this pattern I was able to pass GWT objects to and from webworker using serialization provided by AutoBeanFactory.
If you never use dev mode it is currently safe to pretend that a Java String[] is a JS array with strings in it. This will break in dev mode since arrays have to be usable in Java and Strings are treated specially, and may break in the future if the compiler optimizes arrays differently.
Cases where this could go wrong in the future:
The semantics of Java arrays and JavaScript arrays are different - Java arrays cannot be resized, and are initialized with specific values based on the component type (the data in the array). Since you are writing Java code, the compiler could conceivable make assumptions based on details about how you create and use that array that could be broken by JS code that doesn't know to never modify the array.
Some arrays of primitive types could be optimized into TypedArrays in JavaScript, more closely following Java semantics in terms of resizing and Java behavior in terms of allocation. This would be a performance boost as well, but could break any use of int[], double[], etc.
Instead, you should copy your data into a JsArrayString, or just use the js array to hold the data rather than going back and forth, depending on your use case. The various JsArray types can be resized and already exist as JavaScript objects that outside JS can understand and work with.
Reply to EDIT 2:
At a guess, the parallel.js script is trying to run your code from another scope such a in the webworker (that's the point of the code, right) where your GWT code isn't present. As such, it can't call the makeJavaInvoke which is the bridge back into dev mode (would be a different failure with compiled JS). According to http://adambom.github.io/parallel.js/ there are specific requirements that a passed callback must meet to be passed in to spawn and perhaps then - your anonymous functions definitely do not meet them, and it may not be possible to maintain java semantics.
Before I get much deeper, check out this answer I did a while ago addressing the basic issues with webworkers and gwt/java: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11376059/860630
As noted there, WebWorkers are effectively new processes, with no shared code or shared state with the original process. The Parallel.js code attempts to paper over this with a little bit of trickery - shared state is only available in the form of the contents passed in to the original Parallel constructor, but you are attempting to pass in instances of 'java' objects and calling methods on them. Those Java instances come with their own state, and potentially can link back to the rest of the Java app by fields in the Worker instance. If I were implementing Worker and doing something that referenced other data than what was passed in, then I would be seeing further bizarre failures.
So the functions you pass in must be completely standalone - they must not refer to external code in any way, since then the function can't be passed off to the webworker, or to several webworkers, each unaware of each other's existence. See https://github.com/adambom/parallel.js/issues/32 for example:
That's not possible since it would
require a shared state across workers
require us to transmit all scope variables (I don't think there's even a possibility to read the available scopes)
The only thing which might be possible would be cache variables, but these can already be defined in the function itself with spawn() and don't make any sense in map (because there's no shared state).
Without being actually familiar with how parallel.js is implemented (all of this answer so far is reading the docs and a quick google search for "parallel.js shared state", plus having experiemented with WebWorkers for a day or so and deciding that my present problem wasn't yet worth the bother), I would guess that then is unrestricted, and you can you pass it whatever you like, but spawn, map, and reduce must be written in such a way that their JS can be passed off to the new JS process and completely stand alone there.
This may be possible from your normal Java code when compiled, provided you have just one implementation of Worker and that impl never uses state other than what is directly passed in. In that case the compiler should rewrite your methods to be static so that they are safe to use in this context. However, that doesn't make for a very useful library, as it seems you are trying to achieve. With that in mind, you could keep your worker code in JSNI to ensure that you follow the parallel.js rules.
Finally, and against the normal GWT rules, avoid $entry for calls you expect to happen in other contexts, since those workers have no access to the normal exception handling and scheduling that $entry enables.
(and finally finally, this is probably still possible if you are very careful at writing Worker implementations and write a Generator that invokes each worker implementation in very specific ways to make sure that com.google.gwt.dev.jjs.impl.MakeCallsStatic and com.google.gwt.dev.jjs.impl.Pruner can correctly act to knock out the this in those instance methods once they've been rewritten as JS functions. I think the cleanest way to do this is to emit the JSNI in the generator itself, call a static method written in real Java, and from that static method call the specific instance method that does the heavy lifting for spawn, etc.)
Scenario: I have a GWT web application running within a JavaFX WebView/WebEngine. I am able to pass Strings from GWT to JavaScript to JavaFX without any issues.
Problem: When passing an array of custom objects like Data[] in the same fashion, the result on the JavaFX side is null.
An example of what Data looks like:
public class Data extends Serializable
{
char[] name;
int code;
short bar;
}
Here's the code to send the data to JavaScript:
public static native void doNativeStuff(String id, Data[] data) /*-{
$wnd.javaInterface.doStuff(id, data);
}-*/;
I've verified in the debugger that the Java object being passed in is populated with data and looks good.
Now on the JavaFX side, I have the following code to add the javaInterface to the page:
JSObject win = (JSObject) engine.executeScript("window");
win.setMember("javaInterface", new JavaInterface());
I know that this works because I'm using it for other methods that pass only Strings and they work great.
public void doStuff(String id, Data[] data)
{
// Right here, id == "validId" and data == null
if (data != null)
{
... do what is needed ...
}
}
Note that the Data object is defined and accessible on both sides.
From the GWT documentation:
Incoming Java type How it appears to JavaScript code
Java array opaque value that can only be passed back into Java code
I'm not touching it in JavaScript at all and I'm only passing it through from Java->JavaScript->Java, but the final step appears to be what is failing.
I've spent the last few hours scouring Stack Overflow, Google, GWT groups, gwtproject.org, etc. But most all of the examples only show a single argument being passed through and almost none of them show a Java Array being used.
I'd much rather just pass the object through rather than going to->from JSON, but I did give that a try out of desperation. I tried to use GSON but it doesn't work on the GWT client side. I tried to use the GWT AutoBean Framework but my Data object isn't a valid bean (I think because of no default constructor) and I cannot change that at this time.
I'm not using any Long or long values.
I've seen examples like this:
#com.google.gwt.examples.JSNIExample::staticFoo(Ljava/lang/String;)(s);
But from what I can tell that's just for going from JavaScript to GWT over JSNI. I'm trying to go the other way. I also couldn't find an example of this for multiple arguments.
I'm sure that there is just a minor tweak here that I'm missing, but I haven't been able to figure it out just yet. Please let me know if you see something that I'm missing here.
opaque value that can only be passed back into Java code
I think this means you cannot pass Java array into JavaScript code.
Agree with jat. I used to provide support for the similar needs and I had to serialize the objects myself.
And you can pass multiple arguments like this (types of arguments are given just for example):
private native void doJSAction(MyClass handler)/*-{
// do smth in JS
// then call external non-static method
handler.#com.myclient.helper.MyClass::doMyAction(Lcom/google/gwt/core/client/JavaScriptObject;Ljava/lang/String;Lcom/myclient/helper/MyClass;II)(jsNativeSmth, myString, handler, intA, intB);
}-*/;
where doMyAction is something like the following:
void doMyAction(JavaScriptObject jsObject, String s, MyClass instance, int a, int b)
I haven't played with JavaFX, but since it runs in a different VM and knows nothing about the GWT DevMode protocol (for example, a Java object is wrapped in a JS object that basically makes RPC calls to manipulate it), I am pretty sure you are going to have to serialize everything between GWT and JavaFX as Strings and primitives.
I am very new to GWT.
I am using ext-gwt widgets.
I found many places in my office code containing like,
class A extends BaseModel{
private UserAccountDetailsDto userAccountDetailsDto = null;
//SETTER & GETTER IN BASEMODEL WAY
}
Also, the DTO reference is unused.
public class UserAccountDetailsDto implements Serializable{
private Long userId=null;
private String userName=null;
private String userAccount=null;
private String userPermissions=null;
//NORMAL SETTER & GETTER
}
Now, I am able to get the result from GWT Server side Code and things Work fine, but when I comment the DTO reference inside the class A, I am not getting any Result.
Please explain me the need of that.
Thanks
Well the problem is in implementation of GXT BaseModel and GWT-RPC serialization.
BaseModel is based around special GXT map, RpcMap. This map has defined special serialization rules, which let's avoid RPC type explosion, but as side effect, only some simple types stored in map will be serialized. E.g. you can put any type inside the map, but if you serialize/deserialize it, only values of type Integer, String ,Double,Byte, Float and Short (and arrays of this types) will be present. So the meaning behind putting reference to the DTO inside BaseModel, is to tell GWT-RPC that this type is also have to be serialized.
Detailed explanation
Basically GWT-RPC works like this:
When you define an interface for service, GWT-RPC analyzes all the classes used in parameters/ return type, to create serializers/deserializers. If you return something like Map<Object,Object> from your service, GWT-RPC will have to create a serializer for each class which implements Map and Serializable interfaces, but also it will generate serializers for each class which implements Serializable. In the end it is quite a bad situation, because the size of your compiled js file will be much biggger. This situation is called GWT-RPC type explosion.
So, in the BaseModel, all values are stored in RpcMap. And RpcMap has custom written serializer (RpcMap_CustomFieldSerializer you can see it's code if you interested how to create such things), so it doesn't cause the problem described above. But since it has custom serializer GWT dosn't know which custom class have been put inside RpcMap, and it doesn't generate serializers for them. So when you put some field into your BaseModel class, gwt knows that it might need to be able to serialize this class, so it will generate all the required stuff for this class.
Porting GXT2 Application code using BaseModel to GXT3 Model is uphill task. It would be more or less completely rewrite on model side with ModelProviders from GXT3 providing some flexibility. Any code that relies on Model's events, store, record etc are in for a rewrite.
GWT.create() is the reflection equivalent in GWT,
But it take only class literals, not fully qualified String for the Class name.
How do i dynamically create classes with Strings using GWT.create()?
Its not possible according to many GWT forum posts but how is it being done in frameworks like Rocket-GWT (http://code.google.com/p/rocket-gwt/wiki/Ioc) and Gwittir (http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/wiki/Introspection)
It is possible, albeit tricky. Here are the gory details:
If you only think as GWT as a straight Java to JS, it would not work. However, if you consider Generators - Special classes with your GWT compiler Compiles and Executes during compilation, it is possible. Thus, you can generate java source while even compiling.
I had this need today - Our system deals with Dynamic resources off a Service, ending into a String and a need for a class. Here is the solutuion I've came up with - btw, it works under hosted, IE and Firefox.
Create a GWT Module declaring:
A source path
A Generator (which should be kept OUTSIDE the package of the GWT Module source path)
An interface replacement (it will inject the Generated class instead of the interface)
Inside that package, create a Marker interface (i call that Constructable). The Generator will lookup for that Marker
Create a base abstract class to hold that factory. I do this in order to ease on the generated source code
Declare that module inheriting on your Application.gwt.xml
Some notes:
Key to understanding is around the concept of generators;
In order to ease, the Abstract base class came in handy.
Also, understand that there is name mandling into the generated .js source and even the generated Java source
Remember the Generator outputs java files
GWT.create needs some reference to the .class file. Your generator output might do that, as long as it is referenced somehow from your application (check Application.gwt.xml inherits your module, which also replaces an interface with the generator your Application.gwt.xml declares)
Wrap the GWT.create call inside a factory method/singleton, and also under GWT.isClient()
It is a very good idea to also wrap your code-class-loading-calls around a GWT.runAsync, as it might need to trigger a module load. This is VERY important.
I hope to post the source code soon. Cross your fingers. :)
Brian,
The problem is GWT.create doen't know how to pick up the right implementation for your abstract class
I had the similar problem with the new GWT MVP coding style
( see GWT MVP documentation )
When I called:
ClientFactory clientFactory = GWT.create(ClientFactory.class);
I was getting the same error:
Deferred binding result type 'com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory' should not be abstract
All I had to do was to go add the following lines to my MyWebapp.gwt.xml file:
<!-- Use ClientFactoryImpl by default -->
<replace-with class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactoryImpl">
<when-type-is class="com.test.mywebapp.client.ClientFactory"/>
</replace-with>
Then it works like a charm
I ran into this today and figured out a solution. The questioner is essentially wanting to write a method such as:
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz) {
return (T)GWT.create(clz);
}
Here MyInterface is simply a marker interface to define the range of classes I want to be able to dynamically generate. If you try to code the above, you will get an error. The trick is to define an "instantiator" such as:
public interface Instantiator {
public <T extends MyInterface> T create(Class<T> clz);
}
Now define a GWT deferred binding generator that returns an instance of the above. In the generator, query the TypeOracle to get all types of MyInterface and generate implementations for them just as you would for any other type:
e.g:
public class InstantiatorGenerator extends Generator {
public String generate(...) {
TypeOracle typeOracle = context.getTypeOracle();
JClassType myTYpe= typeOracle.findType(MyInterface.class.getName());
JClassType[] types = typeOracle.getTypes();
List<JClassType> myInterfaceTypes = Collections.createArrayList();
// Collect all my interface types.
for (JClassType type : types) {
if (type.isInterface() != null && type.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& type.equals(myType) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(type);
}
for (JClassType nestedType : type.getNestedTypes()) {
if (nestedType.isInterface() != null && nestedType.isAssignableTo(myType)
&& nestedType.equals(myTYpe) == false) {
myInterfaceTypes.add(nestedType);
}
}
}
for (JClassType jClassType : myInterfaceTypes) {
MyInterfaceGenerator generator = new MyInterfaceGenerator();
generator.generate(logger, context, jClassType.getQualifiedSourceName());
}
}
// Other instantiator generation code for if () else if () .. constructs as
// explained below.
}
The MyIntefaceGenerator class is just like any other deferred binding generator. Except you call it directly within the above generator instead of via GWT.create. Once the generation of all known sub-types of MyInterface is done (when generating sub-types of MyInterface in the generator, make sure to make the classname have a unique pattern, such as MyInterface.class.getName() + "_MySpecialImpl"), simply create the Instantiator by again iterating through all known subtypes of MyInterface and creating a bunch of
if (clz.getName().equals(MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface)) { return (T) new MySpecialDerivativeOfMyInterface_MySpecialImpl();}
style of code. Lastly throw an exception so you can return a value in all cases.
Now where you'd call GWT.create(clz); instead do the following:
private static final Instantiator instantiator = GWT.create(Instantiator.class);
...
return instantiator.create(clz);
Also note that in your GWT module xml, you'll only define a generator for Instantiator, not for MyInterface generators:
<generate-with class="package.rebind.InstantiatorGenerator">
<when-type-assignable class="package.impl.Instantiator" />
</generate-with>
Bingo!
What exactly is the question - i am guessing you wish to pass parameters in addition to the class literal to a generator.
As you probably already know the class literal passed to GWT.create() is mostly a selector so that GWT can pick and execute a generator which in the end spits out a class. The easist way to pass a parameter to the generator is to use annotations in an interface and pass the interface.class to GWT.create(). Note of course the interface/class must extend the class literal passed into GWT.create().
class Selector{
}
#Annotation("string parameter...")
class WithParameter extends Selector{}
Selector instance = GWT.create( WithParameter.class )
Everything is possible..although may be difficult or even useless. As Jan has mentioned you should use a generator to do that. Basically you can create your interface the generator code which takes that interface and compile at creation time and gives you back the instance. An example could be:
//A marker interface
public interface Instantiable {
}
//What you will put in GWT.create
public interface ReflectionService {
public Instantiable newInstance(String className);
}
//gwt.xml, basically when GWT.create finds reflectionservice, use reflection generator
<generate-with class="...ReflectionGenerator" >
<when-type-assignable class="...ReflectionService" />
</generate-with>
//In not a client package
public class ReflectionGenerator extends Generator{
...
}
//A class you may instantiate
public class foo implements Instantiable{
}
//And in this way
ReflectionService service = GWT.create(ReflectionService.class);
service.newInstance("foo");
All you need to know is how to do the generator. I may tell you that at the end what you do in the generator is to create Java code in this fashion:
if ("clase1".equals(className)) return new clase1();
else if ("clase2".equals(className)) return new clase2();
...
At the final I thought, common I can do that by hand in a kind of InstanceFactory...
Best Regards
I was able to do what I think you're trying to do which is load a class and bind it to an event dynamically; I used a Generator to dynamically link the class to the event. I don't recommend it but here's an example if it helps:
http://francisshanahan.com/index.php/2010/a-simple-gwt-generator-example/
Not having looked through the code of rocket/gwittir (which you ought to do if you want to find out how they did it, it is opensource after all), i can only guess that they employ deferred binding in such a way that during compile time, they work out all calls to reflection, and statically generate all the code required to implement those call. So during run-time, you cant do different ones.
What you're trying to do is not possible in GWT.
While GWT does a good job of emulating Java at compile time the runtime is of course completely different. Most reflection is unsupported and it is not possible to generate or dynamically load classes at runtime.
I had a brief look into code for Gwittir and I think they are doing their "reflection stuff" at compile time. Here: http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/source/browse/trunk/gwittir-core/src/main/java/com/totsp/gwittir/rebind/beans/IntrospectorGenerator.java
You might be able to avoid the whole issue by doing it on the server side. Say with a service
witch takes String and returns some sort of a serializable super type.
On the server side you can do
return (MySerializableType)Class.forName("className").newInstance();
Depending on your circumstances it might not be a big performance bottleneck.