Go try it out and then comment. Geoff
On 5/23/06, Alex Kartashev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Cantrell wrote: > I completely agree with about 90% of what Todd writes. This is > definitely not a flash in the pan, and the idea of using an > intermediate language (Java, in this case) that compiles to client- > side code is a brilliant and revolutionary one. Revolutionary? All that the first C++ compilers did was processing C++ source code into C. And that was a nightmare to debug. Alex > > >> Finally, there was nothing wrong with the original MVCs. Swing (or >> any other traditional MVC) worked. > > > Actually, I think Swing kind of sucks, and looked good when it came > out only because MFC, X, and AWT were so much worse. Swing ain't no > Cocoa. And honestly, I still kind of miss Metrowerks Powerplant. > > But my real concern about GWT is that it appears to bring us back to > the world where everything is just a mess of one-size-fits-all > widgets. Konstantin is right, of course -- there is no web text > editor than can compare to a dedicated text editor rich GUI. The > reason for that, however, is because people took a *lot* of time to > work out all the minutiae of making a good UI for editing text. > > By contrast, most desktop apps stick their domain into existing > widgets (one of which is a text editor) instead of going to the > enormous trouble of build a new, highly specialized UI with custom > graphics. > > DHTML+CSS is quite expressive, but much lower cost, than build a > custom desktop UI component pixel by pixel. Right now, GWT seems to > lead away from some of that flexibility, and put us back in the world > of predefined widgets. > > Note that this concern does *not* depend on GWT's fundamental > architecture, which is quite promising. Rather, it's a complaint > about GWT's emphasis on widgets and widgety UIs. One need only look > at Google Maps to see that GWT does not imply ultra-modal widget > overload hell.... But will GWT really lead us to fine apps like that? > Or will it lead us to apps that look like the config dialogs for Word > (bleah)? > > Regardless, it's exciting to live in a world where all these great > technologies are pushing and learning from one another. Compare that > to the stagnant software world of ten years ago! > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > On May 20, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Todd Orr wrote: > >> This isn't really a Tapestry vs GWT thing. This is the latest >> (greatest?) push to remove the application-web disconnect. If this >> means that other frameworks are rendered less effective by comparison, >> then so be it. This is evolution at work. >> >> Some posts seem to indicate that this is just some flash in the pan >> technology, but there is far more at work here. The development time >> may be able to be accelerated to very a large degree thanks to the >> traditional java based GUI paradigm being exploited here. This >> technology also has the backing of google. At the end of the day, this >> is more than just an ajaxy flash in the pan. Look around you. Apps >> utilizing this technology are on a very sharp incline. Not because >> they are flashy, or at least not just for that reason. These ajaxified >> components allow developers to make better use of available bandwidth >> at the same time as building more responsive GUIs. Yes, tacos (and >> others) have been enabling this, but the leap here is in the learning >> curve, time to market, and testability. These are where GWT seems to >> be able to shine. >> >> Whether you like the ajax stuff or you prefer the old webapp view is >> immaterial. It is happening. It will likely shape the "web 2.0" world. >> How you make use of these components is up to you, but there hasn't >> been anything like this available in such a clean package with such a >> major player backing it ever before. If you do not want to leverage >> these types of (maybe rehashed) technologies, that's fine. There are a >> lot of apps out there that do and there're not all just desktop app >> imitators. Check out http://techcrunch.com. There are many, many very >> interesting projects that are more than just desktop app wannabes. >> Most of these wouldn't be what they are without the aid of ajax and >> related technologies. >> >> GWT is compelling and doesn't sit well with devs that have finally >> mastered framework X. Sure, it is encouraging a change in design >> paradigms. That's the best part. I see the same convo popping up on >> many forums. Will there be competitors? Maybe, yes, who cares. IMHO, >> one of jee's shortcomings is the lack of focus, but that's another >> debate altogether. This is here. It's only in beta and it rocks >> already. It hits at an ideal time when development focus is on writing >> more efficient and more responsive, and more flashy apps. Few other >> frameworks are addressing this. As good as Tacos is, it's clunky by >> comparison. >> >> The "code in java" ideal is the next logical step. I remember how hard >> it was for my coworkers to deal with the abstractions that Tapestry >> offered over dealing with the servlet api directly. Eventually, these >> same people came to appreciate this. The technique that GWT employs is >> the same level of shift. We're not only going to isolate you from the >> servlet, we're going to isolate you from the web. This is a logical >> evolution. The Web is just another view technology. I should be able >> to work with it in the same manner as swing. >> >> Finally, there was nothing wrong with the original MVCs. Swing (or any >> other traditional MVC) worked. The reason that web frameworks popped >> up wasn't because GUI MVCs were not good. They were formed because GUI >> MVCs were impossible (or nearly) to implement on the Web. We've >> reached a point where this is no longer true. >> >> On 5/20/06, Peter Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Also, the viability of GWT is maybe related not to whether it >>> adheres to or >>> refers to any specific framework but whether it kills development >>> time and >>> can be integrated. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> PS >>> >>> On 5/20/06, Alan Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I agree with both Konstantin and Paul Contrell on this one. My >>> > experience as a developer has been with both desktop applications >>> > (especially in the consumer space) and web applications >>> (especially in >>> > PHP). I have been going through the learning curve of Tapestry >>> because >>> > it offers scope to build large scale, powerful web applications >>> which >>> > can do more than just entering forms or clicking checkboxes. >>> > >>> > I am impressed with GWT after downloading and playing with it, but I >>> > think that Tapestry has a whole lot more to offer than just the >>> ability >>> > to do Java-to- Javascript UI. >>> > >>> > AJAX is an overworked buzzword. The key point is that you can design >>> > pages which don't need a whole page refresh to update some of the >>> > displayed data. The 'cool' UI stuff can be useful, but is not >>> essential >>> > in the design of an engaging and powerful application (web or >>> desktop.) >>> > Interestingly UI designers of desktop apps are tending to >>> 'webify' them >>> > to give them the semantics of a web page, so it seems ironic that >>> web UI >>> > designers are so keen to go the other way! >>> > >>> > In summary, GWT is interesting and will be useful. Tapestry is >>> useful >>> > for more than just its UI components especially when combined with >>> > Hivemind. I don't see GWT either being the death knell for >>> Tapestry OR >>> > Tacos. I look forward to examples of integrating Tapestry and GWT >>> and if >>> > I find that I need to do one myself I'll report on my results to >>> this >>> > list, as I hope others will too. >>> > >>> > >>> > Alan Chaney >>> > >>> > >>> > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote: >>> > >>> > > >I prefer the average webapp's UI to the average >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>desktop (well, Windows) or Swing UI. >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > First of all let me state the obvious: there are different >>> types of >>> > applications and they have different requirements. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >I yet to see a convenient web based text editor or accounting >>> > application, much less an IDE. Please point me at just one robust >>> and >>> > convenient text editing component: they are not a match to >>> 'desktop' .ones. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > The whole idea of overhauling html with javascript and other >>> types of >>> > augmentation technologies does not seem to be conceptually >>> correct. From the >>> > conceptual point of view it all looks like XWindow reinvention >>> with the >>> > help of ducktape and gluegun. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > IMO the whole buzz around GWT validates Swing framework as >>> solid basis >>> > for building certain types of UI. Ant therefore rather than >>> compile it to >>> > Javascript or whatever within a browser it would make much more >>> sense to >>> > let Swing components to work within browsers. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > And what is interesting is that all the technologies are here >>> in place >>> > ant they need just slight adjustments: >>> > > - Browser Components were invented long time ago and they are >>> called: >>> > Applets. All we need is to make Java Web Start technology to work >>> with them >>> > well; >>> > > - JavaWebStart, JNLP actually needs to be altered a bit to >>> allow using a >>> > shared repository of components per developers choice. The >>> ability is >>> > present now but the feature is artificially limited to the same >>> source >>> > domain and does not allow multiple signatures on components; >>> > > - And Java RT should be made modular and become a must have for >>> the >>> > clients, which is going to be easy enough since Sun is going to >>> opensource >>> > it; >>> > > >>> > > I think that this set of technologies if far superior to >>> anything else >>> > we have in the space: Flash, Ajax, and current JWS applications. >>> Yes the >>> > technologies are 'old' and have some stigma attached but we need >>> to overcome >>> > it in order to have some meaningful progress rather than be >>> obsessed with >>> > 'new' stuff that on many occasions is just reinvent the wheel, >>> but makes it >>> > square or octahedral (I guess it improves traction.). >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com > Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
