To summarize Alex' complaint: Your plans will add hardship to my work. Please don't do that.
That's a fair point, but I believe this point was understand from the start. What size app do you have, if the 4 second bootup time for tomcat doesn't bother you? It must be enormous. Hosted mode doesn't compile anything, it interprets, that's why it starts up so much faster than actually compiling it. OOPHM is still being worked on actively by the core GWT team, if the chatter in gwt-contributors is any indicator. It hasn't been abandoned. On Nov 22, 12:54 am, Alex Epshteyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruce, > > I might be too late in replying to this thread, but I want to phrase > my objections to what you've proposed. > > A. Regarding Jetty: > > I think this will be a waste of time for everyone. Switching > underlying servers is a "no value added" task (using Six Sigma > vocabulary). > > 1). Many developers are using -noserver so for them this will make no > difference. > > 2). Many other developers have customized the embedded Tomcat to suit > our needs (I spent hours customizing it so that I don't have to run > with -noserver). It will take hours to re-adjust again if you switch > underlying servers. > > 3). Why? What's the benefit of switching to Jetty? Tomcat startup is > like 5 seconds tops, which accounts for maybe 10% of the hosted mode > startup time. You should speed up the compiler if you want to speed > up hosted mode. I don't understand what Jetty has to offer here. > I'd be happy if you proved me wrong here, though. > > B. Regarding the output directory structure: > > I feel the same way about this as I do about Jetty. I think this is a > waste of time - no real value added to GWT. Most of us will have to > re-tweak our ant build configs which is always a waste of time. > > C. Final thoughts > > I'm really looking forward to seeing something of substance in the > roadmap for 1.6, because between what you've written here and what's > marked with 1_6_RC on the issue tracker, I see nothing of any value > except minor bug fixes. > > Here are the top 3 features that I think would add real value to GWT: > > 1). A way to get meaningful Java line number from Javascript > exceptions thrown in a deployed production app (compiled with -style > OBF) > > 2). Out-of-process hosted mode (to enable using different browsers in > hosted mode). > > 3). A Declarative UI framework (one was started by Joel W. but seems > to have been abandoned). > > 4). Speed up compilation > > Java 5 support would have been #1 on this list a year ago. You guys > did a great job with GWT 1.5 - it included at least 2 giant leaps > (Java 5 and the JSO/DOM framework), and I hope to see another big leap > like that on the roadmap instead of features that add little value to > GWT, like Tomcat vs. Jetty. > > In the end, if you decide to go forward with Jetty, I can come to > terms with that, but I will need a good reason to upgrade to 1.6, like > one of the 4 items on my list. > > Thanks for your time, > Alex > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:48 pm, "Bruce Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > Hope you're enjoying 1.5. > > > > The GWT team has started putting together a 1.6 roadmap, which we'll > > > publish > > > as soon as we have it nailed down. Two of the areas we want to work on for > > > 1.6 are some improvements tohostedmodestartup time and a friendlier > > > output directory structure (something that looks more .war-like). > > > > As part of this effort, we've all but decided toswitchthehostedmode > > >embeddedHTTPserverfromTomcattoJetty. Would this break you? (And if so, > > > how mad would you be if we did it anyway?) We figure most people who > > > really > > > care about the web.xml and so on are already using "-noserver" to have > > > full > > > control over theirserverconfig. > > > > Thanks, > > > Bruce --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
