I think that there's enough branding/momentum/etc. behind the GWT name that to be taken seriously it should stick with the GWT name, even if possibly adjusted slightly like Jens's suggestions.
I'm fully behind the direction the compiler is taking and I believe that the vision put forward in the videos from the GWT meetup is a great one that will resonate well with developers. My big concern is that the "migration" story and timing isn't great right now. New projects that are starting with GWT 2.8 are somewhat in limbo right now. I think that things are okay for the business logic and presenter side of things, but deciding what to do for the view layer is tricky. JsInterop doesn't feel complete enough to easily use with libraries like React for the view layer. I've played around with doing this but it seems very painful without some of the JsInterop 2.0 features (per https://goo.gl/sKsBGX) in particular the functionality from the Js class to easily call JS and create JS collections. As such, the best choice seems to be UiBinder with HTML+CSS and my own minimal JsInterop interfaces for DOM types. But even that's not future proof under the current plans to not support UiBinder. If Singular was available it would probably bridge the gap, but it's not available so we're left picking from choices that aren't planned to be in GWT 3.0. An official JsInterop version of elemental would also be a big help to prevent everyone from creating their own version and having to migrate later. I would recommend a doc/page/etc. be started which clearly lists things that are definitely going to be in GWT 3.0, those that are under consideration, and those that definitely won't. Also, give trivial examples future proof setups that dev's can follow to make the 3.0 transition easier. Cheers, James On 13 June 2015 at 14:44, Jens <jens.nehlme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I kind of agree not calling it GWT 3.0. I would not name it completely > different, maybe something along the lines of GWT X1, GWT RST (abbr. of > reset) or GWT Next. I am pretty sure we could come up with something more > distinct to indicate that this release is a lot different and a reboot of > GWT. > > I also think that without drop-in replacements for widget code, UiBinder > and GWT-RPC a lot of apps will not migrate to the new GWT because it is > simply not cost effective. The GWT surveys shows that the majority of apps > depend on these features. Maybe with the help of Singular it is possible to > incrementally rewrite your UI until its compatible with GWT 3.0 but you > still need to rewrite a lot. > > I think at the end it boils down to if you want to use the new compiler or > if you are fine with the current SDM development speed of the 2.8 release. > Because all the rest of GWT 3.0 can also be used with GWT 2.8. > > -- J. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/76cb0c63-a981-4b54-95bf-ebbd8f773311%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/76cb0c63-a981-4b54-95bf-ebbd8f773311%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAHUxr6NjMi-U_HERJVbPfkVx_3tkspTVbfr3NZ0j179ZhyJ6aA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
