If We can more or less the same I don't see any issue to switch and BTW, I don't see any good reason to maintain both.
Jean Louis Le 18 oct. 2012 19:31, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : > well for me the gui (i didnt put a 's' ;)) is the one matching index.html > (BTW we need to add it to welcome list files in web.xml) > > so +1 > > *Romain Manni-Bucau* > *Twitter: @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau>* > *Blog: **http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/*< > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/> > *LinkedIn: **http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau* > *Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau* > > > > > 2012/10/18 Thiago Veronezi <thi...@veronezi.org> > > > Guys, > > Keeping track of two GUIs wont be an easy task. I was wondering if you > guys > > *agree* on replacing the current GUI by the one I am working on. > > > > The new GUI is based on websockets, but the "ApplicationModel.js" file > can > > manage both type of connections because the connection to the server is > > hidden from the rest of the application. The new "console" panel is a > > pretty good replacement of the current 'EJB', 'Class' and 'Invoke' > panels, > > since we can run any arbitrary server-side script code from it (including > > ejb lookups). > > > > I still need to work on the new 'JNDI' panel. The new 'JNDI' panel would > be > > used as a global view of the JNDI tree, and it would help the users to > find > > jndi lookup strings. > > > > So, my proposal for the next steps would be: > > * improve the "ApplicationModel.js" in order to use regular XMLHttp calls > > is the WebSocket object is not available; > > * create the new JNDI panel > > * kill the old gui. > > > > []s, > > Thiago. > > >
