caching activity in a field in activity mapper - good or bad?

i have a bad feeling by caching every (not to be constructed on every place change)-activity via the boiler plate overkill (imho it is): CachingActivityMapper, FilteredActivityMapper, overriding equals/clone of the place (in a contract breaking way?, i just created an abstract place with special equals/hashCode for this use case) only to get an existing instance of an activity. But if i understand the current documentation of activities and places correctly, this boiler plate way is the "default" way?!

but what about the way jens proposed here (and probably many users do it like this way - expect me?!) - caching the activity in a filed of a "normal" mapper? or the other way around: for what use cases a cached activity/new activity should be returned based on the decision - is place equal to old place? And is there a use case where this will work without overriding equals/hashCode?


thx in advance

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/LSM2elctk0sJ.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.