Draconian Overlord

Oppressing software entropy

GWT MVP Tables

Update 2011/12/29: This post was originally about the gwt-mpv framework, which has since been rechristened Tessell, see tessell.org.

Update 2010/11/30: I’ve added docs for these two approaches to GWT MVP tables: row tables and cell tables in Tessell. (Tessell is a framework to reduce the MVP boilerplate I talked about in this post.)

I’m building a GWT application and, per the latest best practices, using a MVP (model view presenter) approach.

For awhile I was confused about how to build non-trivial views. For example, a dashboard-type table where each row is not just strings of text but an interactive unit.

Last week I finally found an approach that I like: per-row presenters. The trick with complex views seems to be searching for a sweet spot in the decomposition of your presenter/view pairs that is:

  • fine-grained enough to facilitate easy implementation and testing, but
  • not so fine-grained that it buries you in MVP/DI boilerplate.

I’ll add the disclaimer that if there is anything GWT is not, it is not succinct. Boilerplate seems to be the norm for GWT, and especially the MVP approach. I think the assertion is that, for large AJAX applications/codebases, you should be willing to accept some boilerplate as a tradeoff for gaining compile-time checking of type-safety and mockable views for extremely fast/non-browser-based test suites.

MVP Review

So, just to be on the same page, GWT MVP exists primarily to divorce your AJAX application’s business logic from the GWT UI widgets. This is imperative because, unfortunately, the widget are all concrete classes that rely on browser-provided behavior and will not run in a pure-Java unit test.

Since GWT itself does not put interfaces between your code and the browser, GWT MVP is how you by convention put interfaces between your code and the browser. With these interfaces in place, you can mock/stub them out and test your logic in a fast, browser-less unit test.

To show an example, a regular form that would edit a Foo object in GWT MVP is usually a FooPresenter/FooView pair that looks something like:

public class FooPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  // inner-interface defines the UI contract
  // our FooPresenter modifies
  public interface Display {
    // these HasXxx are all interfaces
    HasValue nameField();
    HasValue descriptionField();
    HasClickHandlers saveButton();

  private final Foo foo;

  public FooPresenter(Display display, Foo foo) {
    // display is an implementation of our view, either
    // provided by the real view that uses GWT widgets
    // (typically named FooView) or a mock/stub
    this.foo = foo;

  // Called when the page/tab for our foo loads
  public void onBind() {
    // hook up business logic to the display's
    // HasXxx interfaces
    display.nameField().addValueChangeHandler(new OnNameChanged());
    display.descriptionField().addValueChangeHandler(new OnDescriptionChanged());

  private class OnNameChanged implements ValueChangedHandler<String> {
    public void onChange(String newValue) {

  private class OnDescriptionChanged implements ValueChangedHandler<String> {
    // etc.

public class FooView implements FooPresenter.Display {
  // uibinder code...
  TextBox nameField;

  public nameField() {
    return nameField;

The idea is that the Display interface is easily mockable, so you can write a FooPresenterTest that creates a mock Display, with mock HasValue/etc., and test all of your FooPresenter business logic without actually using any GWT widgets that would require running in a browser environment (like GWTTestCase).

So, that was the review, on to tables.

GWT Tables

To me, it was not immediately obvious how to implement tables in GWT MVP. There is no HasTable interface that holds your hand like HasText/HasValue.

GWT tables are also complicated by the fact that UiBinder only does static templating–unlike nearly every other HTML rendering library out there, it lacks any notion of iteration or for loops or even if statements. You cannot just #for($row in $rows) <tr>row HTML goes here</tr> like you would in Velocity/JSP/etc.

Table Models

Instead, the usual MVP approach is to use a TableModel. The presenter gathers the domain objects (or creates an interface that can load domain objects on demand) and puts them into a TableModel instance. It then pushes the model into the view, which iterates over the model and creates widgets as needed.

One of the GWT examples uses a List<String[]> as a very naive TableModel, but it works well to show the basic idea:

// displays a parent and its list of Foo children
public class ParentPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  public interface Display {
    void setData(List<String[]> model);

  private final Parent parent; // set by constructor

  // Called when the page/tab for our parent loads
  public void onBind() {
    List<String[]> model = new ArrayList<String[]>();
    for (Foo foo : parent.getFoos()) {

  // translate Foo domain object into strings for each cell
  private String[] newLine(Foo foo) {
    return new String[] { foo.getName(), foo.getDescription() };

public class ParentView implements ParentPresenter.Display {
  // uibinder code...
  HTMLTable table;
  public void setData(List<String[]> model) {
    int i = 0;
    for (String[] row : model) {
      table.setText(i, 0, row[0]);
      table.setText(i, 1, row[1]);

The GWT incubator has a much more powerful, elaborate TableModel for their PagingScrollTable that is worth checking out if this approach works for you.

But, the basic idea here is that we’re shoving data into the view and pretty much stopping there.

Where Table Models Work

I think it works very well if your presenter can pre-format everything into basic Strings, which makes the view logic very dumb.

The GWT incubator TableModel certainly looks very nice if your auto-loading-on-scroll 100s/1000s of rows. They have a CachedTableModel wrapper that will ensure you only fetch rows from the server that you really need. Pretty neat.

However, I do start to get a little hesitant when the view interface starts looking more like setData(List<Foo> model) (or TableModel<Foo>) and the view starts interrogating domain objects directly, as this is more complex logic that won’t be under unit tests. But it’s not that big of a deal.

Where Table Models Don’t Work

The main problem I see with TableModels is that there is not an obvious way for the presenter that calls display.setData(model) to get back out HasXxx interfaces for each of the widgets the view creates.

For example, for a “dashboard”-style table, each row doesn’t have just read-only data, but interactive features where a user can start/stop/pause each row’s domain object, which then causes various row-specific style/images changes that are best performed and tested against HasXxx interfaces.

I looked at Hupa and others, but did not find anyone using a TableModel and then pushing per-row/per-cell HasXxx interfaces back into a presenter. Perhaps I just missed it, in which case please correct me.

There is an idiom where you can attach a listener to the entire table, and then ask the view to derive which element it is for:

public class ParentPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  public interface Display {
    // fired for any click anywhere in the table
    HasClickHandlers tableClicked();
    // translate event -> int
    int getRowForClick(ClickEvent event);
    // then any changing row method requires an int
    changeStyle(int row, String otherParams);

  public void onBind() {
    display.tableClicked().addClickHandler(new OnTableClick());

  private class OnTableClick implements ClickHandler {
    public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
      int row = display.getRowForClick(event);
      if (row != -1) {
        // perform action against row
        display.changeStyle(row, "foo");

However this seems less than ideal to me. The view becomes more complicated, and the presenter no longer has concrete HasXxx interfaces that are easy to wire up and stub out. There is also no clear place to store per-cell/per-row state, except perhaps in maps or other fields in the parent presenter.

First Attempt: Per-Cell Presenters

My initial thoughts were that I wanted each cell to have its own presenter instance. This seems awfully intuitive, as the presenter would have its own view with the HasXxx interfaces for its cell.

It also fits very nicely with the GWT HTMLTable API, which is all about cells (e.g. the method setWidget(int row, int column, Widget widget) and friends).

This approach would look something like:

public class ParentPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  public interface Display {
    void setCell(int row, int column, WidgetDisplay display);

  public void onBind() {
    int i = 0;
    for (Foo foo : parent.getFoos()) {
      display.setCell(i, 0, new CellOnePresenter(foo).getDisplay());
      display.setCell(i, 1, new CellTwoPresenter(foo).getDisplay());

public class ParentView implements ParentPresenter.Display {
  // uibinder code...
  HTMLTable fooTable;
  public void setCell(int row, int column, WidgetDisplay display) {
    fooTable.setWidget(row, column, display.asWidget());

Just looking at this example, it doesn’t seem that bad. I thought it’d work out nicely.

However, several folks on the gwt-presenter mailing list warned me against going this route. And turns out they were exactly right.

The overhead of having a separate presenter-view pair for every table column was just too much boilerplate. After CellOnePresenter, CellOneView, CellOneView.ui.xml, CellTwoPresenter, and CellTwoView, I just couldn’t bring myself to implement the rest of the columns.

Second Attempt: Per-Row Presenters

After much complaining, I finally realized that the combination of HTMLTable’s per-cell API and my assumption that “this is a table because there is a <table> tag” was leading me astray.

A dashboard-style table is not really a table–it’s a vertical listing of per-row views. That the HTML code uses <table> tags is purely an implementation detail.

A per-row presenter, with its parent presenter as well, would look like:

public interace HasRows {
  void addRow(WidgetDisplay display);

// this is the parent presenter which
// has the dashboard on its page
public class ParentPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  public interface Display {
    HasRows dashboard();
  public void onBind() {
    for (Foo foo : parent.getFoos()) {
      FooRowPresenter p = new FooRowPresenter(foo);

// this is the per-row presenter that will be instantiated once-per-Foo
// and have its view added to the parent's dashboard table
public class FooRowPresenter extends BasicPresenter<Display> {
  // here are the per-row HasXxx interfaces
  public interface Display {
    HasCss columnCss();
    HasText nameCellText();
    HasText descriptionCellText();
    HasClickHandlers actionFooLink();
  private final Foo foo; // set by constructor
  public void onBind() {
    // finally here is our per-row business logic
    display.actionFooLink().addClickHandler(new OnActionClick());
  private class OnActionClick implements ClickHandler {
    public void onClick(ClickEvent click) {
      // hit server, etc.

As far as how each row’s concrete view class is implemented, I did some hacking so that the entire row has its own UiBinder file. E.g. FooRowView.ui.xml might look like:

<ui:UiBinder xmlns:ui='urn:ui:com.google.gwt.uibinder' xmlns:gwt='urn:import:com.google.gwt.user.client.ui'>
  <gwt:HTMLPanel tag="table">
    <tr ui:field="column">
      <td ui:field="nameCell" />
      <td ui:field="descriptionCell" />
      <td><gwt:Anchor ui:field="actionFoo"/></td>

This ui.xml file initially looks a little odd because each row has its own <table> tag–however, this is just a necessary hack because HTMLPanel does not like its tag attribute to be set to tr. I guess when browsers do innerHTML, they don’t like a tr running around without its parent table.

So, to get around this, plus HTMLTable’s lack of a per-row API, I wrote a RowTable widget that knows how to assemble rows (not cells) of content:

public class RowTable extends Panel implements HasRows {
  // copy/paste some boilerplate from HTMLTable

  // here is the key method--display is the HTMLPanel
  // with tag=table from FooRowView.ui.xml
  public void addRow(final WidgetDisplay display) {
    // get actual widget from the view interface
    Widget widget = display.asWidget();
    // Detaches if necessary
    // Logical attach
    // Physical attach (all TRs)
    final NodeList<Element> nodes = widget.getElement().getElementsByTagName("TR");
    for (int i = 0; i < nodes.getLength(); i++) {
    // Adopt

So, we logically attach the entire HTMLPanel widget (to get the usual Widget/attach magic), but for physically attaching we raid the HTMLPanel’s table element of all of its TR elements (which should be just one given this display is for one row) and append them to our own bodyElement.

Any Downsides?

So far, the only downside to per-row presenters is that it’ll require another presenter/view pair, each with its own class, DI entry, etc. This can be considered boilerplate, but, per my disclaimer, that is pretty much the name of the game for GWT.

I’m also implementing the table’s header row as its own presenter/view pair, meaning for one dashboard table I’ll have 4 classes: FooHeaderPresenter, FooHeaderView, FooRowPresenter, and FooRowView. I would not mind avoiding the extra header presenter/view, but so far it has been the simplest to get working with the RowTable (HasRows actually has two methods, addRow and addHeader for adding to tbody and thead respectively).

And, just to be clear, I’m not advocating per-row presenters for any and every table in a GWT app. E.g. I would stick with TabelModel and TableBulkRenderer for more typical “data” tables–hundreds/thousands of rows that are read-only (or near-read-only).

Wrapping Up

That’s about it. I’ve been very pleased with how things are going with this approach so far.

By stepping back and realizing the row was really its own view–finding the presenter/view decomposition sweet spot–I’m now able to unit test the in-row interactions on their own without even setting them up in the parent table.

The per-row display interfaces, so far, have been awfully simple and just as easy to stub out as the usual form-style name/description examples that make MVP look easy.