>From the GWT FAQ
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_DebuggingAndCompiling.html#Can_I_speed_up_the_GWT_compiler
?:

If you are compiling a large application, you may find that compiling to web
mode takes a long time. One issue is that the compiler actually builds
several versions of your application based on client properties for locale
and browser. For deployment, this is crucial, but for everyday development,
you are probably only using a single browser and locale. If that is the
case, then you can take a shortcut and compile only a single permutation
during the development cycle.

I don't know if OpenTaps are doing this development optimisation.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Tim Ruppert
<tim.rupp...@hotwaxmedia.com>wrote:

> The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the system,
> etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very usage for
> anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We use prototype
> and the tools around - but we've got people who throw that stuff around
> pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going the GWT route -
> so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular usage for as long as
> possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end user
> > usability?
> >
> > One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount
> of
> > time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages using
> > prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but not with
> > prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my pain).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-GWT-tp1570621p1588195.html
> > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Reply via email to