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]
