You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> on 2006/05/17 14:37:02 UTC
Google Web Toolkit
OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
Tapestry/Tacos??
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
Cheers,
PS
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by "Kevin C. Dorff" <kc...@med.cornell.edu>.
License can be found:
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/terms.html
I believe the Google guys said in the JavaOne presentation that the
toolkit was Apache 2.0 license open source. Some of the supporting
utilities may not be open source, but, the toolkit is and the download
comes complete with source. Somebody asked about extending the toolkit
to add some other component or functionality and the Google guy said:
"We want YOU to write it [and contribute it back]". I believe this is
pretty open stuff.
I can tell you based on the JavaOne session this stuff is COOL and
really needs to be integrated with Tapestry. I will definitely
investigate how to use this with my existing apps and will also
investigate how to develop apps using just this toolkit to see how it
compares.
Kevin
On 5/17/06, Scott Russell <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how this could be integrated with the
> work being done on Tacos4 and/or Tapestry 4.1.
>
> Having said that, I think the licence is, like Java, free but not open source.
>
> -Scott
>
>
> On Wednesday 17 May 2006 22:37, Peter Svensson wrote:
> > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >
> > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PS
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Scott Russell <sc...@gmail.com>.
It looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how this could be integrated with the
work being done on Tacos4 and/or Tapestry 4.1.
Having said that, I think the licence is, like Java, free but not open source.
-Scott
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 22:37, Peter Svensson wrote:
> OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> Tapestry/Tacos??
>
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
>
> Cheers,
> PS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
It feels like "the missing link in Tacos", since with this they could
actually make it easy for people to both use it and get going as well as
contribute.
I think .. :) (Gotta try this out atm)
Cheers,
PS
On 5/17/06, Chris Chiappone <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah this is pretty cool, even comes with the ability to create a .project
> file to go directly into eclipse. This would be nice to see in
> Tacos/Tapestry.
>
> On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >
> > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PS
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~chris
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Chris Chiappone <ch...@gmail.com>.
Yeah this is pretty cool, even comes with the ability to create a .project
file to go directly into eclipse. This would be nice to see in
Tacos/Tapestry.
On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> Tapestry/Tacos??
>
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
>
> Cheers,
> PS
>
>
--
~chris
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
I was merely expressing that tap5 is the only place where the pureness of
the API could be realized, I have no intention of stopping what we are doing
in 4.1 just because of one toolkit being released. (i had better hurry too
if it's really to be done by the end of may...)
Maybe I should have been more clear in my sentiments, what I meant was that
trying to force the kind of programming model into 4.1 that would be best
done in tap5 isn't something I plan on doing. (as noted by others, there are
already too many ways of doing things as it is)
That doesn't mean we won't have some automated browser API layers exposed to
4.1, just not in the "best" way possible. heh
I'm still in the middle of it, but I think the new event connection
annotations (I'll cram it into the durned jwc/page specs as well, but
annotations come first :) ) will be the "core" technology that is used most
often to implement some of these new 4.1 features. It will be extremely easy
to expose all of the client side changes that happen as interfaces on
components. If people want to create extremely verbose swing-like
add<Foo>Listener methods that's up to them, but I personally prefer more
generic forms. (Even though I've done a lot of swing programming I still
hate the implementation. Qt on the other hand is much much better as a
toolkit...The event slot connection methods there are more in line with what
dojo is doing on the client and what I'd prefer to use in tap, even though
we don't have function pointers. )
On 5/20/06, Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:
>
> More Tapestry developers should comment on gwt because I wish to see
> some more optimistic comments :)
>
> Because of Tapestry5 is in the planning phase, such "new" technologies
> may be included in it without problems (if needed!). For example
> http://j2s.sourceforge.net/ does similar translation as gwt...
>
> I think now the most important is to integrate dojo (rich widgets, ajax,
> etc) into tapestry as soon as possible. It is far not enough to say that
> "wait for tapestry 5, it will be much better etc". Most users want to
> see the flexibility (via hivemind) of Tapestry4 with more easily useable
> features of Tacos in 4.1.
> What do you think about this? I feel it is too early to plan/prototype
> Tapestry5 before Tapestry4 does not have solid AJAX support.
>
> Regards,
> Norbi
>
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the
> > trouble
> > of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
> > gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately
> > developing
> > various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into
> > javascript
> > using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
> >
> > On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit
> >> it....
> >>
> >> I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very
> >> clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to
> >> java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been
> >> around
> >> for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy.
> The
> >> deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact
> >> amount
> >> needed to run it, no more and no less.
> >>
> >> Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have
> >> more
> >> facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
> >> familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
> >> portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along
> >> with
> >> normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
> >>
> >> So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is
> >> exactly
> >> where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't
> know
> >> what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> >> > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> >> >
> >> > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> >> > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> >> > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> >> > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> >> > to....Tapestry.
> >> >
> >> > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> >> > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> >> >
> >> > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> >> > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> >> > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> >> > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> >> > model programming is nothing to me.
> >> >
> >> > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web
> experience
> >> > find the GWT learning curve.
> >> >
> >> > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> >> > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> >> > But so far..WOW!
> >> >
> >> > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an
> opinion.
> >> > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with
> T
> >> > 4.1.
> >> >
> >> > Geoff
> >> >
> >> > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> >> > app using SWT.
> >> >
> >> > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> >> > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >> > >
> >> > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >> > >
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > PS
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> >> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> >> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jesse Kuhnert
> >> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >>
> >> Open source based consulting work centered around
> >> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date:
> 2006.05.18.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
More Tapestry developers should comment on gwt because I wish to see
some more optimistic comments :)
Because of Tapestry5 is in the planning phase, such "new" technologies
may be included in it without problems (if needed!). For example
http://j2s.sourceforge.net/ does similar translation as gwt...
I think now the most important is to integrate dojo (rich widgets, ajax,
etc) into tapestry as soon as possible. It is far not enough to say that
"wait for tapestry 5, it will be much better etc". Most users want to
see the flexibility (via hivemind) of Tapestry4 with more easily useable
features of Tacos in 4.1.
What do you think about this? I feel it is too early to plan/prototype
Tapestry5 before Tapestry4 does not have solid AJAX support.
Regards,
Norbi
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the
> trouble
> of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
> gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately
> developing
> various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into
> javascript
> using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
>
> On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit
>> it....
>>
>> I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very
>> clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to
>> java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been
>> around
>> for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy. The
>> deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact
>> amount
>> needed to run it, no more and no less.
>>
>> Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have
>> more
>> facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
>> familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
>> portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along
>> with
>> normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
>>
>> So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is
>> exactly
>> where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't know
>> what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
>>
>>
>> On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
>> > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
>> >
>> > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
>> > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
>> > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
>> > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
>> > to....Tapestry.
>> >
>> > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
>> > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
>> >
>> > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
>> > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
>> > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
>> > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
>> > model programming is nothing to me.
>> >
>> > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
>> > find the GWT learning curve.
>> >
>> > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
>> > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
>> > But so far..WOW!
>> >
>> > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
>> > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
>> > 4.1.
>> >
>> > Geoff
>> >
>> > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
>> > app using SWT.
>> >
>> > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
>> > > Tapestry/Tacos??
>> > >
>> > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > PS
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
>> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
>> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jesse Kuhnert
>> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>>
>> Open source based consulting work centered around
>> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 2006.05.18.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
JavaScript is the new Applet, I think.
Actually javaScript might well become the new J2EE. Consider phobos and all
those agile message passing js frameworks collapsing the programming
distinction between client and server.
I'm not sure I'm all for it, but I'm completely floored by the general idea,
a little bit like the utter SoW of a John C Wright book or something.
Cheers,
PS
On 5/21/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.swixml.org/
> http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>
> And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I do with
> Swing.
>
> Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing in
> browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>
>
> Norbert S�ndor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:The good thing in GWT is to
> use the efficient development style of Swing
> (I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Todd Orr <to...@gmail.com>.
>> Applets is what we really need :).
Applets are evil. Even flash is a more compelling client side platform
than applets. I've never seen an applet that didn't make me want to
vomit. XUL is better in many respects to both Flash and Applets thanks
to a clean declarative model, but has the lowest potential market
penetration as IE will not support it, afaik. There are other client
side technologies, but few as prevalent. So, we're left with JS. Love
it or hate it. Most browsers support it, it's stood the test of time,
and it works.
On 5/21/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.swixml.org/
> http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>
> And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I do with Swing.
>
> Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>
>
> Norbert S�ndor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:The good thing in GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> (I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Mike Snare <mi...@gmail.com>.
> Wait till someone announces "GWT on Rails".. yikes!
Yes. Then we will indeed have found the holy GRail itself...
-Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I used to be a proponent of Applets but there are so many known
problems (just read the preceding messages) and so little done about
it for so long that I have given up on them. Maybe some day all the
issue will be fixed - don't hold your breath.
Flash.. yuck. The idea is nice the authoring tools are too artsy
fartsy oriented. Yes I know about lazlo and flex. IMO they are
bandaids.
GWT is new and has the potential to be something great for the types
of applications that lend themselves to it. Like AWT, the goal for GWT
is platform independence. That is, browser Independence in the GWT
case. The execution is not perfect at this time but neither was, and
some still say is, AWT.
GWT is a viable option for any app that might have been built as an
Applet. And those apps will carry along none of Applet's baggage.
IMHO the biggest plus of GWT is the "kick in the pants" that has been
delivered. Every framework out there that touts AJAX features will be
compared to it. Like it or not, GWT will become the benchmark for ease
of adoption, ease of use, and debugging capability in the AJAX space.
Wait till someone announces "GWT on Rails".. yikes!
Geoff
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Heh... Couldn't have put it better. Very well spoken Steven.
On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't had the chance to really play with GWT as much as I would like
> yet, but my first impression is this:
>
> 1. Very cool technology.
> 2. Interesting concept.
> 3. Nice to have all the IDE support for developing an interactive AJAX
> website.
>
> but...
>
> 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI design
> and webapp development.
> 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google (could
> be
> good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there is no
> use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of webapp,
> which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html or
> javascript god help you, cause I won't.
>
> Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions
> my
> be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing since
> sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
>
> On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> business.
> > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that
> easy
> > to install.
> >
> > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you can
> > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
> > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> >
> > -Serge
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >
> > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but
> it
> > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > >
> > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> than
> > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss
> it).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > alternative if it needs a
> > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
> > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > >
> > >-Serge
> > >
> > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe
> it.
> > What an awful
> > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > >>
> > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use,
> not
> > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like
> > NetBeans.
> > >>
> > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for
> > Swing
> > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > >>
> > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > >>
> > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
> > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > >>them, etc.
> > >>
> > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> state
> > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very
> common
> > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> applilications,
> > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to
> do,
> > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > >>
> > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled
> and
> > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any
> > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention
> > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> will
> > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as
> Java.
> > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that
> > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > >>
> > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > >>
> > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities,
> > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
> > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > >>
> > >>P
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > >>>
> > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> > >>>do with Swing.
> > >>>
> > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> underlying
> > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > >>>
> > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> between
> > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil,
> add
> > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> > 263,000
> >
> > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> Needs
> > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> York: State
> > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Steven Bell
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by "Brian K. Wallace" <br...@transmorphix.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Steven Bell wrote:
<snip>
> Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions my
> be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing since
> sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
</snap>
Sounds like... pretty much ever technology I've ever seen, used, heard
of, etc. :-D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEc1JsaCoPKRow/gARArLmAKDN2WG5q3nWIBiwbHeVoyxaLjI4bgCgo3Ui
8GbojP/EFSDmcEjDrluvKVU=
=d6e7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Orlando Brea <or...@gmail.com>.
Tapestry has a big advantage over GWT, the easy separation of the html and
all the other stuff. GWT is a little more tricky on that, it's like swing,
you are defining your GUI by code (java code) and it's a step back on web
GUIs. It's harder for a web designer to touch the GWT code, the tap code is
more friendly. It's easier to do a accesible site with tapestry than with
GWT.
I saw that the GWT code starts to grow bigger and bigger.
See you,
Orlando F. Brea
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by ZedroS Schwart <ze...@gmail.com>.
So news on the Tapestry/GWT front ? I would love to hear what's coming !
Thanks in advance !
On 5/24/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I got capture working
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_frm/thread/3e4954b5cc5f3492/8197b5a553276701#8197b5a553276701
>
> this is what I believe to be the first step to integrating GWT widgets
> into Tapestry forms.
>
> Now... back to Spindle 4T4!
>
> Geoff
>
> On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was able to create, for example, a derivative of the GWT TextBox
> > (textfield) that, instead of creating one, captires one already on the
> > page effectively making it a GWT widget. But the event hookup is
> > incomplete so far.
> >
> > Have not figured out yet how useful that is but I could see that kind
> > of widget GWT-ifying form fields rendered by Tapestry. I guess at the
> > very least you could write client side validaters in java (which would
> > be cool indeed).
> >
> > Right now I'm in yet another death march at work but when I get a
> > minute away from that, and Spindle 4T4, I'm going to see if I can
> > change the autocompleter widget I wrote last weekend to add
> > autocomplete to a text field captured from the html.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Geoff! Please drop a hint on how you think GWT could be integrated
> with tap.
> > > Cheers,
> > > PS
> > >
> > > On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the input Geoff,
> > > >
> > > > I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance
> to
> > > > code
> > > > anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm
> not
> > > > clear
> > > > on how that works.
> > > >
> > > > If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all
> to
> > > > myself. :)
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to
> really
> > > > dig into it.
> > > >
> > > > On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between
> UI
> > > > > design
> > > > > > and webapp development.
> > > > >
> > > > > In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code -
> yes.
> > > > > Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A
> page
> > > > > can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all
> widgetry
> > > > > is located via html and styled via css.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on
> Google
> > > > (could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The
> compiler
> > > > > and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't,
> there
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope - this is untrue.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type
> of
> > > > > webapp,
> > > > > > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in
> general
> > > > > as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even
> call
> > > > > out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> > > > > Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> > > > >
> > > > > > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the
> output html
> > > > > or
> > > > > > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> > > > > javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it
> to
> > > > > be.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to
> debug
> > > > > the java source code!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
> > > > impressions
> > > > > my
> > > > > > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest
> thing
> > > > > since
> > > > > > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work
> with.
> > > > >
> > > > > It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I
> had
> > > > > more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> > > > > integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any
> time on
> > > > > > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have
> my
> > > > > business.
> > > > > > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is
> not
> > > > that
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > to install.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I
> think you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > > > > > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of
> Firefox. I
> > > > > > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel.
> Yes...
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Serge
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without
> Flash
> > > > > but it
> > > > > > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install,
> easier
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that
> I
> > > > miss
> > > > > it).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a
> viable
> > > > > > > alternative if it needs a
> > > > > > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem
> needs
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >-Serge
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout....
> I
> > > > loathe
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > What an awful
> > > > > > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing
> layout....
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy
> to
> > > > use,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI
> editor
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > NetBeans.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout
> managers
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > Swing
> > > > > > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument,
> though.
> > > > > > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web:
> like
> > > > > Flash-
> > > > > > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't
> index
> > > > > > > >>them, etc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider
> current
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned
> are
> > > > very
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> > > > > applilications,
> > > > > > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is
> still
> > > > hard
> > > > > to do,
> > > > > > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to
> bookmark a
> > > > > > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
> > > > crippled
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly
> brings
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not
> to
> > > > > mention
> > > > > > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And
> if they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as
> heavy
> > > > as
> > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do
> everything
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > > > > > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be
> cooking.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> > > > > abilities,
> > > > > > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break
> free from
> > > > > > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use
> of it.
> > > > > > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works
> very
> > > > > hard
> > > > > > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>P
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > > > > > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I
> have
> > > > found
> > > > > > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly
> everything
> > > > I
> > > > > > > >>>do with Swing.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try
> (re)creating
> > > > Swing
> > > > > > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > > > > > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > > > > > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> > > > > underlying
> > > > > > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will
> add
> > > > > > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy
> 115
> > > > > > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two
> miles of
> > > > > > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species,
> erode
> > > > > > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs
> to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > > > > > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and
> Public
> > > > > > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press,
> 1997:
> > > > (4)
> > > > > > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > > > > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > > >>For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > > fifteen
> > > > > > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square
> miles
> > > > of
> > > > > > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert,
> eliminate
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons
> of
> > > > > topsoil, add
> > > > > > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
> > > > population
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > 263,000
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> Movement
> > > > > Needs
> > > > > > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> > > > > York: State
> > > > > > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steven Bell
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Steven Bell
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I got capture working
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_frm/thread/3e4954b5cc5f3492/8197b5a553276701#8197b5a553276701
this is what I believe to be the first step to integrating GWT widgets
into Tapestry forms.
Now... back to Spindle 4T4!
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was able to create, for example, a derivative of the GWT TextBox
> (textfield) that, instead of creating one, captires one already on the
> page effectively making it a GWT widget. But the event hookup is
> incomplete so far.
>
> Have not figured out yet how useful that is but I could see that kind
> of widget GWT-ifying form fields rendered by Tapestry. I guess at the
> very least you could write client side validaters in java (which would
> be cool indeed).
>
> Right now I'm in yet another death march at work but when I get a
> minute away from that, and Spindle 4T4, I'm going to see if I can
> change the autocompleter widget I wrote last weekend to add
> autocomplete to a text field captured from the html.
>
> Geoff
>
> On 5/23/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Geoff! Please drop a hint on how you think GWT could be integrated with tap.
> > Cheers,
> > PS
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the input Geoff,
> > >
> > > I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to
> > > code
> > > anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not
> > > clear
> > > on how that works.
> > >
> > > If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
> > > myself. :)
> > >
> > > Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to really
> > > dig into it.
> > >
> > > On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
> > > > design
> > > > > and webapp development.
> > > >
> > > > In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
> > > > Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
> > > > can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
> > > > is located via html and styled via css.
> > > >
> > > > > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google
> > > (could
> > > > be
> > > > > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
> > > > and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> > > >
> > > > > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> > > >
> > > > Nope - this is untrue.
> > > >
> > > > > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
> > > > webapp,
> > > > > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> > > >
> > > > This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
> > > > as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
> > > > out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> > > > Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> > > >
> > > > > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
> > > > or
> > > > > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
> > > >
> > > > You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> > > > javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
> > > > be.
> > > >
> > > > Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
> > > > the java source code!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
> > > impressions
> > > > my
> > > > > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
> > > > since
> > > > > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
> > > >
> > > > It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
> > > > more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> > > > integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > > > > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> > > > business.
> > > > > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not
> > > that
> > > > easy
> > > > > > to install.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
> > > > can
> > > > > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > > > > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > > > > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
> > > > you
> > > > > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Serge
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
> > > > but it
> > > > > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> > > > than
> > > > > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I
> > > miss
> > > > it).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > > > > > alternative if it needs a
> > > > > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
> > > > to
> > > > > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-Serge
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I
> > > loathe
> > > > it.
> > > > > > What an awful
> > > > > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to
> > > use,
> > > > not
> > > > > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
> > > > like
> > > > > > NetBeans.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
> > > > for
> > > > > > Swing
> > > > > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > > > > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
> > > > Flash-
> > > > > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > > > > > >>them, etc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> > > > state
> > > > > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are
> > > very
> > > > common
> > > > > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> > > > applilications,
> > > > > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still
> > > hard
> > > > to do,
> > > > > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > > > > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
> > > crippled
> > > > and
> > > > > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
> > > > any
> > > > > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
> > > > mention
> > > > > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> > > > will
> > > > > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy
> > > as
> > > > Java.
> > > > > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
> > > > that
> > > > > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > > > > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> > > > abilities,
> > > > > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > > > > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > > > > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
> > > > hard
> > > > > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>P
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > > > > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have
> > > found
> > > > > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything
> > > I
> > > > > > >>>do with Swing.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating
> > > Swing
> > > > > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > > > > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > > > > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> > > > underlying
> > > > > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > > > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > > > > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > > > > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > > > > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to
> > > the
> > > > > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > > > > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > > > > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997:
> > > (4)
> > > > > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > > > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > fifteen
> > > > > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles
> > > of
> > > > > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> > > > between
> > > > > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
> > > > topsoil, add
> > > > > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
> > > population
> > > > by
> > > > > > 263,000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> > > > Needs
> > > > > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> > > > York: State
> > > > > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Steven Bell
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Steven Bell
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I was able to create, for example, a derivative of the GWT TextBox
(textfield) that, instead of creating one, captires one already on the
page effectively making it a GWT widget. But the event hookup is
incomplete so far.
Have not figured out yet how useful that is but I could see that kind
of widget GWT-ifying form fields rendered by Tapestry. I guess at the
very least you could write client side validaters in java (which would
be cool indeed).
Right now I'm in yet another death march at work but when I get a
minute away from that, and Spindle 4T4, I'm going to see if I can
change the autocompleter widget I wrote last weekend to add
autocomplete to a text field captured from the html.
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geoff! Please drop a hint on how you think GWT could be integrated with tap.
> Cheers,
> PS
>
> On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the input Geoff,
> >
> > I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to
> > code
> > anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not
> > clear
> > on how that works.
> >
> > If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
> > myself. :)
> >
> > Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to really
> > dig into it.
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
> > > design
> > > > and webapp development.
> > >
> > > In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
> > > Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
> > > can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
> > > is located via html and styled via css.
> > >
> > > > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google
> > (could
> > > be
> > > > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> > >
> > > I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
> > > and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> > >
> > > > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> > >
> > > Nope - this is untrue.
> > >
> > > > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
> > > webapp,
> > > > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> > >
> > > This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
> > > as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
> > > out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> > > Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> > >
> > > > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
> > > or
> > > > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
> > >
> > > You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> > > javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
> > > be.
> > >
> > > Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
> > > the java source code!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
> > impressions
> > > my
> > > > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
> > > since
> > > > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
> > >
> > > It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
> > > more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> > > integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > > > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> > > business.
> > > > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not
> > that
> > > easy
> > > > > to install.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
> > > can
> > > > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > > > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > > > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
> > > you
> > > > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Serge
> > > > >
> > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
> > > but it
> > > > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> > > than
> > > > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I
> > miss
> > > it).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > > > > alternative if it needs a
> > > > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
> > > to
> > > > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-Serge
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I
> > loathe
> > > it.
> > > > > What an awful
> > > > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to
> > use,
> > > not
> > > > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
> > > like
> > > > > NetBeans.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
> > > for
> > > > > Swing
> > > > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > > > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
> > > Flash-
> > > > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > > > > >>them, etc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> > > state
> > > > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are
> > very
> > > common
> > > > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> > > applilications,
> > > > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still
> > hard
> > > to do,
> > > > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > > > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
> > crippled
> > > and
> > > > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
> > > any
> > > > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
> > > mention
> > > > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> > > will
> > > > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy
> > as
> > > Java.
> > > > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
> > > that
> > > > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > > > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> > > abilities,
> > > > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > > > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > > > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
> > > hard
> > > > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>P
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > > > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have
> > found
> > > > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything
> > I
> > > > > >>>do with Swing.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating
> > Swing
> > > > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > > > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > > > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> > > underlying
> > > > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > > > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > > > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > > > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to
> > the
> > > > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > > > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > > > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997:
> > (4)
> > > > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > fifteen
> > > > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles
> > of
> > > > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> > > between
> > > > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
> > > topsoil, add
> > > > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
> > population
> > > by
> > > > > 263,000
> > > > >
> > > > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> > > Needs
> > > > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> > > York: State
> > > > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Steven Bell
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steven Bell
> >
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
Geoff! Please drop a hint on how you think GWT could be integrated with tap.
Cheers,
PS
On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the input Geoff,
>
> I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to
> code
> anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not
> clear
> on how that works.
>
> If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
> myself. :)
>
> Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to really
> dig into it.
>
> On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
> > design
> > > and webapp development.
> >
> > In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
> > Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
> > can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
> > is located via html and styled via css.
> >
> > > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google
> (could
> > be
> > > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> >
> > I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
> > and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> >
> > > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there
> is
> > no
> > > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> >
> > Nope - this is untrue.
> >
> > > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
> > webapp,
> > > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> >
> > This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
> > as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
> > out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> > Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> >
> > > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
> > or
> > > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
> >
> > You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> > javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
> > be.
> >
> > Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
> > the java source code!
> >
> > >
> > > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
> impressions
> > my
> > > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
> > since
> > > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
> >
> > It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
> > more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> > integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > >
> > > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> > business.
> > > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not
> that
> > easy
> > > > to install.
> > > >
> > > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
> > can
> > > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
> > you
> > > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> > > >
> > > > -Serge
> > > >
> > > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
> > but it
> > > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > > > >
> > > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> > than
> > > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I
> miss
> > it).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > > > alternative if it needs a
> > > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
> > to
> > > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > > > >
> > > > >-Serge
> > > > >
> > > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I
> loathe
> > it.
> > > > What an awful
> > > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to
> use,
> > not
> > > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
> > like
> > > > NetBeans.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
> > for
> > > > Swing
> > > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
> > Flash-
> > > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > > > >>them, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> > state
> > > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are
> very
> > common
> > > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> > applilications,
> > > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still
> hard
> > to do,
> > > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
> crippled
> > and
> > > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
> > any
> > > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
> > mention
> > > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> > will
> > > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy
> as
> > Java.
> > > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
> > that
> > > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> > abilities,
> > > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
> > hard
> > > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>P
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have
> found
> > > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything
> I
> > > > >>>do with Swing.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating
> Swing
> > > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> > underlying
> > > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to
> the
> > > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997:
> (4)
> > > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> fifteen
> > > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles
> of
> > > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> > between
> > > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
> > topsoil, add
> > > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
> population
> > by
> > > > 263,000
> > > >
> > > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> > Needs
> > > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> > York: State
> > > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Steven Bell
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Steven Bell
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Todd Orr <to...@gmail.com>.
>> Until it gets more mature let's concentrate on Tapestry
Maturity is often pushed by the early adopters. Otherwise things tend
to get abandoned. Would Tap4 be as good as it is if no one used it
until it came out of beta?
On 5/23/06, Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:
> GWT is really a cool technology but it is far not mature enough to be
> used for real applications. For example it only supports ASCII Java
> files, has private project management (SVN, bug tracker), etc.
> Until it gets more mature let's concentrate on Tapestry :)
>
> Regards,
> Norbi
>
>
> Steven Bell wrote:
> > Thanks for the input Geoff,
> >
> > I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance
> > to code
> > anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not
> > clear
> > on how that works.
> >
> > If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
> > myself. :)
> >
> > Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to
> > really
> > dig into it.
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
> >> design
> >> > and webapp development.
> >>
> >> In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
> >> Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
> >> can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
> >> is located via html and styled via css.
> >>
> >> > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google
> >> (could
> >> be
> >> > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
> >>
> >> I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
> >> and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> >>
> >> > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't,
> >> there is
> >> no
> >> > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
> >>
> >> Nope - this is untrue.
> >>
> >> > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
> >> webapp,
> >> > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
> >>
> >> This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
> >> as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
> >> out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> >> Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> >>
> >> > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
> >> or
> >> > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
> >>
> >> You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> >> javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
> >> be.
> >>
> >> Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
> >> the java source code!
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
> >> impressions
> >> my
> >> > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
> >> since
> >> > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
> >>
> >> It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
> >> more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> >> integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
> >>
> >> Geoff
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> >> > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> >> business.
> >> > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not
> >> that
> >> easy
> >> > > to install.
> >> > >
> >> > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
> >> can
> >> > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> >> > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> >> > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
> >> you
> >> > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Serge
> >> > >
> >> > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
> >> but it
> >> > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> >> than
> >> > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I
> >> miss
> >> it).
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> >> > > alternative if it needs a
> >> > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
> >> to
> >> > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >-Serge
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I
> >> loathe
> >> it.
> >> > > What an awful
> >> > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to
> >> use,
> >> not
> >> > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
> >> like
> >> > > NetBeans.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
> >> for
> >> > > Swing
> >> > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> >> > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
> >> Flash-
> >> > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> >> > > >>them, etc.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> >> state
> >> > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are
> >> very
> >> common
> >> > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> >> applilications,
> >> > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still
> >> hard
> >> to do,
> >> > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> >> > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
> >> crippled
> >> and
> >> > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
> >> any
> >> > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
> >> mention
> >> > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> >> will
> >> > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as
> >> heavy as
> >> Java.
> >> > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
> >> that
> >> > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> >> > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> >> abilities,
> >> > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> >> > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> >> > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
> >> hard
> >> > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>P
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> >> > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have
> >> found
> >> > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly
> >> everything I
> >> > > >>>do with Swing.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating
> >> Swing
> >> > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> >> > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> >> > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> >> underlying
> >> > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> >> > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> >> > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> >> > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> >> > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to
> >> the
> >> > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> >> > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> >> > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997:
> >> (4)
> >> > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>_________________________________________________________________
> >> > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> >> > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> >> fifteen
> >> > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square
> >> miles of
> >> > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> >> between
> >> > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
> >> topsoil, add
> >> > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
> >> population
> >> by
> >> > > 263,000
> >> > >
> >> > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> >> Needs
> >> > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> >> York: State
> >> > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Steven Bell
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> >> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> >> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 2006.05.22.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
GWT is really a cool technology but it is far not mature enough to be
used for real applications. For example it only supports ASCII Java
files, has private project management (SVN, bug tracker), etc.
Until it gets more mature let's concentrate on Tapestry :)
Regards,
Norbi
Steven Bell wrote:
> Thanks for the input Geoff,
>
> I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance
> to code
> anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not
> clear
> on how that works.
>
> If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
> myself. :)
>
> Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to
> really
> dig into it.
>
> On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
>> design
>> > and webapp development.
>>
>> In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
>> Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
>> can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
>> is located via html and styled via css.
>>
>> > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google
>> (could
>> be
>> > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
>>
>> I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
>> and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
>>
>> > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't,
>> there is
>> no
>> > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
>>
>> Nope - this is untrue.
>>
>> > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
>> webapp,
>> > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
>>
>> This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
>> as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
>> out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
>> Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
>>
>> > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
>> or
>> > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
>>
>> You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
>> javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
>> be.
>>
>> Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
>> the java source code!
>>
>> >
>> > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my
>> impressions
>> my
>> > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
>> since
>> > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
>>
>> It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
>> more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
>> integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> >
>> > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
>> > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
>> business.
>> > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not
>> that
>> easy
>> > > to install.
>> > >
>> > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
>> can
>> > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
>> > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
>> > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
>> you
>> > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
>> > >
>> > > -Serge
>> > >
>> > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
>> but it
>> > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
>> > > >
>> > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
>> than
>> > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I
>> miss
>> it).
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
>> > > alternative if it needs a
>> > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
>> to
>> > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
>> > > >
>> > > >-Serge
>> > > >
>> > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I
>> loathe
>> it.
>> > > What an awful
>> > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to
>> use,
>> not
>> > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
>> like
>> > > NetBeans.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
>> for
>> > > Swing
>> > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
>> > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
>> Flash-
>> > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
>> > > >>them, etc.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
>> state
>> > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are
>> very
>> common
>> > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
>> applilications,
>> > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still
>> hard
>> to do,
>> > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
>> > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is
>> crippled
>> and
>> > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
>> any
>> > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
>> mention
>> > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
>> will
>> > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as
>> heavy as
>> Java.
>> > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
>> that
>> > > Flash does but more efficiently.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
>> > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
>> abilities,
>> > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
>> > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
>> > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
>> hard
>> > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>P
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
>> > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have
>> found
>> > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly
>> everything I
>> > > >>>do with Swing.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating
>> Swing
>> > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
>> > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
>> > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
>> underlying
>> > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>> > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
>> > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
>> > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
>> > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to
>> the
>> > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
>> > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
>> > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997:
>> (4)
>> > > >>>(5) (p.206)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>_________________________________________________________________
>> > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
>> > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Konstantin Ignatyev
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>> fifteen
>> > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square
>> miles of
>> > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
>> between
>> > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
>> topsoil, add
>> > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their
>> population
>> by
>> > > 263,000
>> > >
>> > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
>> Needs
>> > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
>> York: State
>> > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Steven Bell
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
>> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
>> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 2006.05.22.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the input Geoff,
I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to code
anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not clear
on how that works.
If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
myself. :)
Like I said, it looks really interesting, I'll need to find time to really
dig into it.
On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI
> design
> > and webapp development.
>
> In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
> Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
> can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
> is located via html and styled via css.
>
> > 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google (could
> be
> > good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
>
> I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
> and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
>
> > 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there is
> no
> > use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
>
> Nope - this is untrue.
>
> > 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of
> webapp,
> > which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
>
> This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
> as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
> out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
> Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
>
> > 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html
> or
> > javascript god help you, cause I won't.
>
> You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
> javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
> be.
>
> Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
> the java source code!
>
> >
> > Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions
> my
> > be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing
> since
> > sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
>
> It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
> more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
> integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
>
> Geoff
>
> >
> > On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my
> business.
> > > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that
> easy
> > > to install.
> > >
> > > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you
> can
> > > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes...
> you
> > > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> > >
> > > -Serge
> > >
> > > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > >
> > > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash
> but it
> > > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > > >
> > > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier
> than
> > > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss
> it).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > > alternative if it needs a
> > > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs
> to
> > > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > > >
> > > >-Serge
> > > >
> > > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe
> it.
> > > What an awful
> > > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > > >>
> > > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use,
> not
> > > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor
> like
> > > NetBeans.
> > > >>
> > > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers
> for
> > > Swing
> > > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > > >>
> > > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > > >>
> > > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like
> Flash-
> > > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > > >>them, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current
> state
> > > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very
> common
> > > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax
> applilications,
> > > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard
> to do,
> > > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > > >>
> > > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled
> and
> > > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings
> any
> > > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to
> mention
> > > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they
> will
> > > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as
> Java.
> > > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything
> that
> > > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > > >>
> > > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > > >>
> > > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's
> abilities,
> > > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very
> hard
> > > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > > >>
> > > >>P
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > > >>>
> > > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> > > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> > > >>>do with Swing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> > > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the
> underlying
> > > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> > > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> > > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Konstantin Ignatyev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> > > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> > > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate
> between
> > > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of
> topsoil, add
> > > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population
> by
> > > 263,000
> > >
> > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement
> Needs
> > > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New
> York: State
> > > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steven Bell
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
--
Regards,
Steven Bell
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
>
> 4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI design
> and webapp development.
In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. And all widgetry
is located via html and styled via css.
> 5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google (could be
> good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
I'd like to say "yes and no" but unfortunatley I can't. The compiler
and dev tool are not open source but everyting else is.
> 6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there is no
> use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
Nope - this is untrue.
> 7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of webapp,
> which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
This is true for a page that is all GWT widgets. Not true in general
as you can use the widgets as pieces of a regualr page (and even call
out to "native' js with ease). Somebody has already wrapped
Scriptaculous as a Java class with native method calls out.
> 8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html or
> javascript god help you, cause I won't.
You can set the compiler to output unobfuscated and uncompressed
javascript. So, it's no harder to debug the js than you choose it to
be.
Although, I despise debugging js and much prefer being able to debug
the java source code!
>
> Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions my
> be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing since
> sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
It remains to be seen how GWT will go over. I like it. I wish I had
more free time to play with it. I think I've figured out how to
integrate GWT widgets with Tap (an approach anyway) but no time!
Geoff
>
> On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> > configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my business.
> > I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that easy
> > to install.
> >
> > Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you can
> > install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> > work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> > remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
> > need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
> >
> > -Serge
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >
> > >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it
> > is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> > >
> > >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than
> > Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> > alternative if it needs a
> > >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
> > >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> > >
> > >-Serge
> > >
> > >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it.
> > What an awful
> > >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> > >>
> > >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not
> > to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like
> > NetBeans.
> > >>
> > >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for
> > Swing
> > >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> > >>
> > >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> > >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> > >>
> > >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
> > >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> > >>them, etc.
> > >>
> > >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state
> > of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common
> > for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications,
> > Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do,
> > for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> > purchasing transaction in the middle?
> > >>
> > >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and
> > simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any
> > comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention
> > inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will
> > try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java.
> > If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that
> > Flash does but more efficiently.
> > >>
> > >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> > >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> > >>
> > >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities,
> > and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> > limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> > >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
> > >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> > >>
> > >>P
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> > >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> > >>>
> > >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> > >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> > >>>do with Swing.
> > >>>
> > >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> > >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> > >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> > >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> > >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> > >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> > >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> > >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> > >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> > >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> > >>>
> > >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> > >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> > >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> > >>>(5) (p.206)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>_________________________________________________________________
> > >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> > 263,000
> >
> > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Steven Bell
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Steven Bell <be...@gmail.com>.
I haven't had the chance to really play with GWT as much as I would like
yet, but my first impression is this:
1. Very cool technology.
2. Interesting concept.
3. Nice to have all the IDE support for developing an interactive AJAX
website.
but...
4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI design
and webapp development.
5. It leaves you very locked into the tool and reliant on Google (could be
good or bad, but leaves me a bit uneasy).
6. It seems to be an all or nothing thing. Use GWT or don't, there is no
use GWT on these couple of pages, but not the rest.
7. It seems to lend itself to the 'one very dynamic page' type of webapp,
which is great for some things, but unworkable for others.
8. If you some reason you ever have to debug or tweak the output html or
javascript god help you, cause I won't.
Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions my
be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing since
sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
On 5/23/06, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on
> configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my business.
> I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that easy
> to install.
>
> Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you can
> install 32-bit version of flash and it would
> work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
> remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
> need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
>
> -Serge
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it
> is easy and relatively fast to install it.
> >
> >The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than
> Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
> >
> >
> >
> >Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable
> alternative if it needs a
> >JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
> >be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
> >
> >-Serge
> >
> >Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it.
> What an awful
> >>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
> >>
> >>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not
> to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like
> NetBeans.
> >>
> >>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for
> Swing
> >>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
> >>
> >>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> >>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
> >>
> >>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
> >>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
> >>them, etc.
> >>
> >>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state
> of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common
> for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications,
> Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do,
> for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a
> purchasing transaction in the middle?
> >>
> >>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and
> simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any
> comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention
> inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will
> try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java.
> If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that
> Flash does but more efficiently.
> >>
> >>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
> >>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
> >>
> >>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities,
> and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from
> limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
> >>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
> >>to respect the client's control of their browser.
> >>
> >>P
> >>
> >>
> >>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>http://www.swixml.org/
> >>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
> >>>
> >>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> >>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> >>>do with Swing.
> >>>
> >>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> >>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> >>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> >>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> >>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Konstantin Ignatyev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> >>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> >>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> >>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> >>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> >>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
> >>>
> >>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> >>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> >>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> >>>(5) (p.206)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> >>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>
--
Regards,
Steven Bell
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on configuring that. If site requires flash then they do not have my business.
I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that easy to install.
Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> wrote: Yeah... I think you can install 32-bit version of flash and it would
work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it is easy and relatively fast to install it.
>
>The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
>
>
>
>Sergei Dubov wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable alternative if it needs a
>JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
>be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
>
>-Serge
>
>Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>
>
>
>>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
>>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
>>
>>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like NetBeans.
>>
>>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for Swing
>>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
>>
>>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
>>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>>
>>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
>>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
>>them, etc.
>>
>>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications, Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do, for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a purchasing transaction in the middle?
>>
>>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java. If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that Flash does but more efficiently.
>>
>>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
>>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
>>
>>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities, and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
>>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
>>to respect the client's control of their browser.
>>
>>P
>>
>>
>>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.swixml.org/
>>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>>>
>>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
>>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
>>>do with Swing.
>>>
>>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
>>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>>>
>>>
>>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
>>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
>>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
>>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Konstantin Ignatyev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
>>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
>>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
>>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
>>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>>>
>>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
>>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
>>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
>>>(5) (p.206)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
>>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Konstantin Ignatyev
PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com>.
Yeah... I think you can install 32-bit version of flash and it would
work.... Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it is easy and relatively fast to install it.
>
>The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
>
>
>
>Sergei Dubov <sd...@gmail.com> wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable alternative if it needs a
>JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
>be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
>
>-Serge
>
>Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>
>
>
>>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
>>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
>>
>>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like NetBeans.
>>
>>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for Swing
>>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
>>
>>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
>>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>>
>>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
>>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
>>them, etc.
>>
>>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications, Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do, for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a purchasing transaction in the middle?
>>
>>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java. If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that Flash does but more efficiently.
>>
>>There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
>>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
>>
>>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities, and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
>>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
>>to respect the client's control of their browser.
>>
>>P
>>
>>
>>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.swixml.org/
>>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>>>
>>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
>>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
>>>do with Swing.
>>>
>>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
>>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>>>
>>>
>>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
>>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
>>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
>>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Konstantin Ignatyev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
>>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
>>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
>>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
>>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>>>
>>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
>>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
>>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
>>>(5) (p.206)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
>>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it is easy and relatively fast to install it.
The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than Flash (whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
Sergei Dubov <sd...@gmail.com> wrote: Interesting... How can an applet be a viable alternative if it needs a
JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>Paul Cantrell wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
>
>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like NetBeans.
>
>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for Swing
>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
>
>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>
>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
>them, etc.
>
>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications, Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do, for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a purchasing transaction in the middle?
>
>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java. If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that Flash does but more efficiently.
>
> There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
>
>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities, and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
>to respect the client's control of their browser.
>
>P
>
>
>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>
>
>
>>http://www.swixml.org/
>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>>
>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
>>do with Swing.
>>
>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>>
>>
>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>>
>>
>>
>>Konstantin Ignatyev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>>
>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
>>(5) (p.206)
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Sergei Dubov <sd...@gmail.com>.
Interesting... How can an applet be a viable alternative if it needs a
JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com> wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
>mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
>
>Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like NetBeans.
>
>And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for Swing
>http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
>
>I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
>"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>
>But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
>based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
>them, etc.
>
>I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications, Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do, for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a purchasing transaction in the middle?
>
>On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java. If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that Flash does but more efficiently.
>
> There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
>good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
>
>I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities, and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
>I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
>to respect the client's control of their browser.
>
>P
>
>
>On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
>
>
>
>>http://www.swixml.org/
>>http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>>
>>And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
>>GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
>>do with Swing.
>>
>>Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
>>in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>>
>>
>>Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
>>GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
>>(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
>>browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>>
>>
>>
>>Konstantin Ignatyev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
>>fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
>>square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
>>desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
>>seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
>>stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>>
>>Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
>>Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
>>Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
>>(5) (p.206)
>>
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
>Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com> wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to mention that it is very easy to arrange components in UI editor like NetBeans.
And if you do not like it, then there is plenty of layout managers for Swing
http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Javadesktop/3thParty
I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
them, etc.
I was talking at conceptual level, by no means I consider current state of Applets to be ideal. But the problems you have mentioned are very common for all kinds of stateful techniques: Tapestry, heavy Ajax applilications, Echo2, and I guess GWT. Even if continuation is used it is still hard to do, for example fhat good will it do if we will be able to bookmark a purchasing transaction in the middle?
On Flash - the technology does not make sense at all: it is crippled and simplified JVM that runs one Flash VM per Flash that quickly brings any comp on the knees when number of flashes grows beyond 10. Not to mention inability to share and reuse fllash libraries on client. And if they will try to implement all that in the Flash VM then it will be as heavy as Java. If Java RT was modular then Applets would be able to do everything that Flash does but more efficiently.
There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
I do not think so. We will be still dependent on browser's abilities, and IMO emerging trends indicate that people want to break free from limitations of HTML and browser while being able to make use of it.
I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
to respect the client's control of their browser.
P
On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> http://www.swixml.org/
> http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>
> And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> do with Swing.
>
> Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>
>
> Norbert S�ndor wrote:The good thing in
> GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> (I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> (5) (p.206)
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com>.
Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout.... I loathe it. What an awful
mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout....
I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
But applets don't integrate well with the flow of the web: like Flash-
based sites, you can't bookmark them, search engines can't index
them, etc. There are limits to what they're good for. If there were a
good way to attach Java to a page's DOM, then we'd be cooking.
I wonder how limited GWT is in this respect? Tapestry works very hard
to respect the client's control of their browser.
P
On May 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
> http://www.swixml.org/
> http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
>
> And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
> GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I
> do with Swing.
>
> Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing
> in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
>
>
> Norbert S�ndor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:The good thing in
> GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
> (I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
> browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
>
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add
> fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115
> square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of
> desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode
> seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the
> stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
> Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public
> Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4)
> (5) (p.206)
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
http://www.swixml.org/
http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I do with Swing.
Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing in browsers. Applets is what we really need :).
Norbert S�ndor <de...@erinors.com> wrote:The good thing in GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
Konstantin Ignatyev
PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
There is no need to build desktop-like interfaces pixel by pixel. Just
think about Echo's HtmlPanel, it's very similar to Tapestry's templating
mechanism.
The good thing in GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlying
browser's HTML+CSS capatibilites for layout.
Regards,
Norbi
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.
>
>> 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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
> --No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date:
> 2006.05.19.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Francis Amanfo <fa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Geoff,
Reading your comments on GWT, it seems you've found another darling. Not bad
though, as long as you strive to distribute your love evenly between them
;-)
Regards,
Francis
On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Go try it out and then comment.
>
> Geoff
>
> On 5/23/06, Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> 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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > > Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
Go try it out and then comment.
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com> 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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> > Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Alex Kartashev <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com>.
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.
> 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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Todd Orr <to...@gmail.com>.
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 <ps...@gmail.com> 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
Yes, the big thing is the ability of easy debugging of clientside code.
As I wrote before, Tapestry4 offers much more than the current gwt
release. Anyone can see it by downloading the package or checing the
developer forums. (Of course it is only an initial, beta release.)
But Tapestry should benefit by the useful ideas of gwt and other
frameworks as well.
As I currently see - as someone noted, there is no official roadmap -
Tapestry+Hivemind offers much more flexibility for web applications than
gwt. Gwt is much closer to Echo2 than Tapestry, it is not ideal for
traditional web applications.
But as I already told: Tapestry should adapt new technologies - like
rich js libraries as dojo, ajax, etc - much earlier.
Regards,
Norbi
Peter Svensson 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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 2006.05.18.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
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 <al...@compulsivecreative.com> 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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Alan Chaney <al...@compulsivecreative.com>.
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: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
>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.).
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
Good point. But I I assumed that it would be possible to subvert GWT widgets
to tapestry wrappings, or maybe the other side around, since they want to
bind to something id'd in the page. That way we could use any GWT widgte
just the way we could a Tacos component.
Having said that I must take of my hat to the fact that I do not whatsoever
understand what I am talking about.
Cheers,
PS
On 5/20/06, Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> For people writing single-page Ajaxy apps that look like Swing, GWT
> may well be the death knell for other frameworks. For other types of
> apps, I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the former type of
> app is something I want to see more of.
>
> I don't necessarily like the trend toward the single-page Ajax app
> that resembles a desktop app. Why? Desktop apps generally suck. They
> attempt to stuff any sort of data structure, any sort of interface
> semantics, into the same set of widgets provided by the platform. The
> result is a sort of widget soup, lots of dialogs with subdialogs, all
> highly modal (excessive modality being a bad thing.) See the Windows
> network config dialog for an extreme example.
>
> Something I love about webapps is that they've broken the shackles of
> the widget set: people use creative markup to represent their data
> structures in all sort of inventive ways. Granted, many web UIs suck,
> but on the whole, I prefer the average webapp's UI to the average
> desktop (well, Windows) or Swing UI.
>
> So don't get me wrong; it's still very, very cool -- but I have mixed
> feelings about GWT. Will it encourage a step backwards in UI design,
> back to the dark days of modal widget soup? Perhaps not, but such is
> my misgiving.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
> On May 20, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Todd Orr wrote:
>
> > The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
> > killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more traditional
> > GUI programming model approach plus the power of the resulting
> > components is a real winner. It will be interesting to see what T5 has
> > in store, but I've yet to hear a true road map - only hearsay about
> > ideas on a drawing board. This may be heresy, but as much as Tapestry
> > was an improvement over Struts (and many other MVCs), it seems that
> > GWT (IMO) is that much further towards the ideal solution over Tap.
> > Don't get me wrong, I love Tapestry for what it has done and the
> > impression it has made in the community. I fondly remember the feeling
> > of freedom from moving away from Struts. Yet, technology moves on at a
> > faster clip than everyone is able to keep up with. This may be the
> > death knoll for all previous next-gen frameworks.
> >
> > On 5/19/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the
> >> trouble
> >> of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make
> >> sure it
> >> gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately
> >> developing
> >> various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into
> >> javascript
> >> using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
> >>
> >> On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to
> >> admit
> >> > it....
> >> >
> >> > I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out,
> >> very
> >> > clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser
> >> equivalent to
> >> > java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has
> >> been around
> >> > for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just
> >> crazy. The
> >> > deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the
> >> exact amount
> >> > needed to run it, no more and no less.
> >> >
> >> > Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably
> >> have more
> >> > facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of
> >> course
> >> > familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
> >> > portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh),
> >> along with
> >> > normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
> >> >
> >> > So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in
> >> is exactly
> >> > where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost
> >> don't know
> >> > what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> >> > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> >> > >
> >> > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> >> > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we
> >> have a
> >> > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old
> >> Java GUI
> >> > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> >> > > to....Tapestry.
> >> > >
> >> > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble.
> >> Being
> >> > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply
> >> amazing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for
> >> reasons
> >> > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was
> >> coming
> >> > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a
> >> year)
> >> > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into
> >> the GUI
> >> > > model programming is nothing to me.
> >> > >
> >> > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web
> >> experience
> >> > > find the GWT learning curve.
> >> > >
> >> > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it
> >> remains to
> >> > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits
> >> of GWT.
> >> > > But so far..WOW!
> >> > >
> >> > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an
> >> opinion.
> >> > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been
> >> doing with T
> >> > > 4.1.
> >> > >
> >> > > Geoff
> >> > >
> >> > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an
> >> Eclipse RCP
> >> > > app using SWT.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this
> >> work with
> >> > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >> > > >
> >> > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > > PS
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> >> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> >> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Jesse Kuhnert
> >> > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >> >
> >> > Open source based consulting work centered around
> >> > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jesse Kuhnert
> >> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >>
> >> Open source based consulting work centered around
> >> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
> Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Paul Cantrell <ca...@pobox.com>.
For people writing single-page Ajaxy apps that look like Swing, GWT
may well be the death knell for other frameworks. For other types of
apps, I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the former type of
app is something I want to see more of.
I don't necessarily like the trend toward the single-page Ajax app
that resembles a desktop app. Why? Desktop apps generally suck. They
attempt to stuff any sort of data structure, any sort of interface
semantics, into the same set of widgets provided by the platform. The
result is a sort of widget soup, lots of dialogs with subdialogs, all
highly modal (excessive modality being a bad thing.) See the Windows
network config dialog for an extreme example.
Something I love about webapps is that they've broken the shackles of
the widget set: people use creative markup to represent their data
structures in all sort of inventive ways. Granted, many web UIs suck,
but on the whole, I prefer the average webapp's UI to the average
desktop (well, Windows) or Swing UI.
So don't get me wrong; it's still very, very cool -- but I have mixed
feelings about GWT. Will it encourage a step backwards in UI design,
back to the dark days of modal widget soup? Perhaps not, but such is
my misgiving.
Cheers,
Paul
On May 20, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Todd Orr wrote:
> The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
> killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more traditional
> GUI programming model approach plus the power of the resulting
> components is a real winner. It will be interesting to see what T5 has
> in store, but I've yet to hear a true road map - only hearsay about
> ideas on a drawing board. This may be heresy, but as much as Tapestry
> was an improvement over Struts (and many other MVCs), it seems that
> GWT (IMO) is that much further towards the ideal solution over Tap.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Tapestry for what it has done and the
> impression it has made in the community. I fondly remember the feeling
> of freedom from moving away from Struts. Yet, technology moves on at a
> faster clip than everyone is able to keep up with. This may be the
> death knoll for all previous next-gen frameworks.
>
> On 5/19/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the
>> trouble
>> of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make
>> sure it
>> gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately
>> developing
>> various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into
>> javascript
>> using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
>>
>> On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to
>> admit
>> > it....
>> >
>> > I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out,
>> very
>> > clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser
>> equivalent to
>> > java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has
>> been around
>> > for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just
>> crazy. The
>> > deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the
>> exact amount
>> > needed to run it, no more and no less.
>> >
>> > Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably
>> have more
>> > facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of
>> course
>> > familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
>> > portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh),
>> along with
>> > normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
>> >
>> > So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in
>> is exactly
>> > where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost
>> don't know
>> > what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
>> > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
>> > >
>> > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
>> > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we
>> have a
>> > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old
>> Java GUI
>> > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
>> > > to....Tapestry.
>> > >
>> > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble.
>> Being
>> > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply
>> amazing.
>> > >
>> > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for
>> reasons
>> > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was
>> coming
>> > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a
>> year)
>> > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into
>> the GUI
>> > > model programming is nothing to me.
>> > >
>> > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web
>> experience
>> > > find the GWT learning curve.
>> > >
>> > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it
>> remains to
>> > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits
>> of GWT.
>> > > But so far..WOW!
>> > >
>> > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an
>> opinion.
>> > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been
>> doing with T
>> > > 4.1.
>> > >
>> > > Geoff
>> > >
>> > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an
>> Eclipse RCP
>> > > app using SWT.
>> > >
>> > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this
>> work with
>> > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
>> > > >
>> > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > > PS
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
>> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
>> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>> > >
>> > >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jesse Kuhnert
>> > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>> >
>> > Open source based consulting work centered around
>> > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jesse Kuhnert
>> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>>
>> Open source based consulting work centered around
>> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Piano music podcast: http://inthehands.com
Other interesting stuff: http://innig.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Ted Steen <te...@gmail.com>.
Or maybe this is an excellent opportunity for T5-developers to look at
the good stuff in existing technology and do it better. :>
2006/5/20, Todd Orr <to...@gmail.com>:
> The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
> killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more traditional
> GUI programming model approach plus the power of the resulting
> components is a real winner. It will be interesting to see what T5 has
> in store, but I've yet to hear a true road map - only hearsay about
> ideas on a drawing board. This may be heresy, but as much as Tapestry
> was an improvement over Struts (and many other MVCs), it seems that
> GWT (IMO) is that much further towards the ideal solution over Tap.
> Don't get me wrong, I love Tapestry for what it has done and the
> impression it has made in the community. I fondly remember the feeling
> of freedom from moving away from Struts. Yet, technology moves on at a
> faster clip than everyone is able to keep up with. This may be the
> death knoll for all previous next-gen frameworks.
>
> On 5/19/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the trouble
> > of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
> > gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately developing
> > various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into javascript
> > using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
> >
> > On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit
> > > it....
> > >
> > > I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very
> > > clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to
> > > java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been around
> > > for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy. The
> > > deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact amount
> > > needed to run it, no more and no less.
> > >
> > > Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have more
> > > facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
> > > familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
> > > portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along with
> > > normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
> > >
> > > So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is exactly
> > > where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't know
> > > what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> > > >
> > > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > > > to....Tapestry.
> > > >
> > > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > > > model programming is nothing to me.
> > > >
> > > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > > > find the GWT learning curve.
> > > >
> > > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > > > But so far..WOW!
> > > >
> > > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > > > 4.1.
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > > > app using SWT.
> > > >
> > > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > > > >
> > > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > PS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jesse Kuhnert
> > > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> > >
> > > Open source based consulting work centered around
> > > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jesse Kuhnert
> > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >
> > Open source based consulting work centered around
> > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
/ted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Todd Orr <to...@gmail.com>.
The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more traditional
GUI programming model approach plus the power of the resulting
components is a real winner. It will be interesting to see what T5 has
in store, but I've yet to hear a true road map - only hearsay about
ideas on a drawing board. This may be heresy, but as much as Tapestry
was an improvement over Struts (and many other MVCs), it seems that
GWT (IMO) is that much further towards the ideal solution over Tap.
Don't get me wrong, I love Tapestry for what it has done and the
impression it has made in the community. I fondly remember the feeling
of freedom from moving away from Struts. Yet, technology moves on at a
faster clip than everyone is able to keep up with. This may be the
death knoll for all previous next-gen frameworks.
On 5/19/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the trouble
> of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
> gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately developing
> various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into javascript
> using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
>
> On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit
> > it....
> >
> > I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very
> > clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to
> > java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been around
> > for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy. The
> > deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact amount
> > needed to run it, no more and no less.
> >
> > Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have more
> > facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
> > familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
> > portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along with
> > normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
> >
> > So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is exactly
> > where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't know
> > what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
> >
> >
> > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> > >
> > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > > to....Tapestry.
> > >
> > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> > >
> > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > > model programming is nothing to me.
> > >
> > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > > find the GWT learning curve.
> > >
> > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > > But so far..WOW!
> > >
> > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > > 4.1.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > > app using SWT.
> > >
> > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > > >
> > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > PS
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jesse Kuhnert
> > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
> >
> > Open source based consulting work centered around
> > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Maybe on second thought....Since I've already gone through all the trouble
of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately developing
various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into javascript
using rhino so...I dunno.....we'll see..
On 5/20/06, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit
> it....
>
> I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very
> clever stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to
> java. Not literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been around
> for a fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy. The
> deployed JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact amount
> needed to run it, no more and no less.
>
> Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have more
> facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
> familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
> portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along with
> normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
>
> So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is exactly
> where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't know
> what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
>
>
> On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> >
> > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > to....Tapestry.
> >
> > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> >
> > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > model programming is nothing to me.
> >
> > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > find the GWT learning curve.
> >
> > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > But so far..WOW!
> >
> > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > 4.1.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > app using SWT.
> >
> > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson < psvensson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > >
> > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > PS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit it....
I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very clever
stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to java. Not
literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been around for a
fairly long time now, but what they did with it is just crazy. The deployed
JS that comes with your "compiled" application is the exact amount needed to
run it, no more and no less.
Comparing my background history I'd have to say that I probably have more
facless/native gui experience than web as well. The API's are of course
familiar. A lot of rhino api stuff made it into the public facing
portions(which is equivalent to saying the browser API.,.heh), along with
normal GUI-ish type things you'd expect.
So, I feel happy in knowing that the direction tap5 is going in is exactly
where it should be, but sad at the same time because I almost don't know
what to do now. Why try and re-invent the wheel? hmmmm
On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
>
> I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> to....Tapestry.
>
> Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
>
> Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> model programming is nothing to me.
>
> It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> find the GWT learning curve.
>
> But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> But so far..WOW!
>
> As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> 4.1.
>
> Geoff
>
> PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> app using SWT.
>
> On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >
> > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PS
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind.
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com>.
+1.0E6
Cheers,
PS
On 5/21/06, Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
> > on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
>
> Hey.. can't wait to put my hands on that :-)!
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
> -- Mário
>
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On 5/20/06, Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Seems really cool Geoff.
> > >
> > > Could you post the source code to take a look?
> > >
> > > -- Mário
> > >
> > > On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos
> autocompleter.
> > > >
> > > > here's a movie of it...
> > > >
> > > > http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > > > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> > > > >
> > > > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > > > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > > > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java
> GUI
> > > > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > > > > to....Tapestry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > > > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for
> reasons
> > > > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was
> coming
> > > > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a
> year)
> > > > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the
> GUI
> > > > > model programming is nothing to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web
> experience
> > > > > find the GWT learning curve.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains
> to
> > > > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of
> GWT.
> > > > > But so far..WOW!
> > > > >
> > > > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an
> opinion.
> > > > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing
> with T
> > > > > 4.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff
> > > > >
> > > > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse
> RCP
> > > > > app using SWT.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work
> with
> > > > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > PS
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
> on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
Hey.. can't wait to put my hands on that :-)!
Keep up the good work!
-- Mário
>
> Geoff
>
> On 5/20/06, Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seems really cool Geoff.
> >
> > Could you post the source code to take a look?
> >
> > -- Mário
> >
> > On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
> > >
> > > here's a movie of it...
> > >
> > > http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> > > >
> > > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > > > to....Tapestry.
> > > >
> > > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> > > >
> > > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > > > model programming is nothing to me.
> > > >
> > > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > > > find the GWT learning curve.
> > > >
> > > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > > > But so far..WOW!
> > > >
> > > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > > > 4.1.
> > > >
> > > > Geoff
> > > >
> > > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > > > app using SWT.
> > > >
> > > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > > > >
> > > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > PS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
Geoff
On 5/20/06, Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems really cool Geoff.
>
> Could you post the source code to take a look?
>
> -- Mário
>
> On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
> >
> > here's a movie of it...
> >
> > http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> > >
> > > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > > to....Tapestry.
> > >
> > > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> > >
> > > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > > model programming is nothing to me.
> > >
> > > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > > find the GWT learning curve.
> > >
> > > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > > But so far..WOW!
> > >
> > > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > > 4.1.
> > >
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > > app using SWT.
> > >
> > > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > > >
> > > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > PS
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Mário Lopes <ma...@gmail.com>.
Seems really cool Geoff.
Could you post the source code to take a look?
-- Mário
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
>
> here's a movie of it...
>
> http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
>
> Geoff
>
> On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> > frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
> >
> > I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> > lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> > work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> > programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> > to....Tapestry.
> >
> > Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> > able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
> >
> > Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> > that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> > out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> > with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> > model programming is nothing to me.
> >
> > It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> > find the GWT learning curve.
> >
> > But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> > be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> > But so far..WOW!
> >
> > As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> > I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> > 4.1.
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> > app using SWT.
> >
> > On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > > Tapestry/Tacos??
> > >
> > > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > PS
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> > Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> > Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
here's a movie of it...
http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
Geoff
On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
> frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
>
> I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
> lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
> work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
> programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
> to....Tapestry.
>
> Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
> able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
>
> Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
> that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
> out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
> with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
> model programming is nothing to me.
>
> It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
> find the GWT learning curve.
>
> But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
> be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
> But so far..WOW!
>
> As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
> I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
> 4.1.
>
> Geoff
>
> PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
> app using SWT.
>
> On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> > Tapestry/Tacos??
> >
> > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > PS
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
> Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
> Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Google Web Toolkit
Posted by Geoff Longman <gl...@gmail.com>.
Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
work here. Nothing complete mind you but for myself, an old Java GUI
programmer, the learning curve is infinitesmal compared
to....Tapestry.
Even the demos are easily modified without too much trouble. Being
able to debug it like a normal Java GUI program is simply amazing.
Way back when I found the learning curve of Tapestry hard for reasons
that are probably different from those most find today. I was coming
out of Swing land and had only a few months experiences (ok a year)
with servlet/jsp programming (no struts). Sliding back into the GUI
model programming is nothing to me.
It will be interesting to hear how developers with only web experience
find the GWT learning curve.
But, all new things are cooler than the old things and it remains to
be seen if one will hit the wall once one reaches the limits of GWT.
But so far..WOW!
As for integrating GWT widgets into Tapestry..I can't give an opinion.
I'm not up enough on the hard work Jesse et all have been doing with T
4.1.
Geoff
PS. [OT]it's very interesting that the devtime tool is an Eclipse RCP
app using SWT.
On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <ps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
> Tapestry/Tacos??
>
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
>
> Cheers,
> PS
>
>
--
The Spindle guy. http://spindle.sf.net
Blog: http://jroller.com/page/glongman
Other interests: http://www.squidoo.com/spaceelevator/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org