I just wonder what people would like to see in a GWT library: what widgets, what features? I guess a nice look and feel for a start, but what else?
> 4) There's some really iffy design decisions. What do you consider iffy design choices? Fred On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:45, nogridbag <nogrid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been using GXT (Ext-GWT) for quite some time now. While it > certainly looks nice and provides a good amount of functionality > lacking in GWT, there are several drawbacks. > > 1) It is very buggy. Bugs get fixed fairly fast, which is good, but I > find myself submitting an abnormally large amount of bugs. While the > developer (singular) is very responsive, passionate about his work, > and friendly, the code isn't exactly up to the standards that was > hoping for. > > 2) It is not just a set of widgets, it's a complete framework on top > of GWT. Your team will have to invest time to learn it. > Intermingling GWT widgets and GXT widgets is possible, but confusing > IMHO. Which leads me to my next issue. > > 3) Documentation is still very lacking, although they're working on > it... > > 4) There's some really iffy design decisions. > a) The use of generics is not only inconsistent, but in many cases > it's not even possible to use generics due to API bugs. The example I > was going to post was actually just fixed in the release today. > b) While the widgets look nice and performance is OK, you are forced > to back the GXT components (like Grid, Tree, List) with GXT specific > data model objects. If you have a simple Employee POJO, and you want > to add it to a GXT Grid, you have to either wrap it in a Model or > ModelData class, or you have to implement a marker interface and do a > bit of trickery to get it in the Grid. The only reason for all of > this is to support binding (since GWT doesn't support reflection). I > would much rather have preferred a Swing like TableModel and an > optional binding layer on top of it. > c) The widgets look nice out of the box and customizing them slightly > with CSS is pretty easy. However, if the changes require you to alter > the HTML of a GXT component, you're in for a world of pain. The HTML > markup is tied heavily into the functionality of the widgets and is > referenced throughout the class either by tag name, tag id, or by css > "class". IMHO, the UI should be completely separate from the > functionality of the widgets. > > 5) Size. The CSS itself is ~80k. > > On the plus side, it's nice to have a pure GWT library in which I can > step into Java code (which you will have to do quite often!). The > widgets look and function very nicely. It would take a lot of time > and money to write many of the widgets GXT provides. If you plan on > using it as is, it works fine. > > On Dec 19, 10:13 am, "Juan Backson" <juanback...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have been using GWT for almost 6 months now. In the past six months, I > > have tried migrating code from pure GWT to GWT-EXT and then to Smart-GWT. > > > > They all have drawback: > > > > GWT - no good looking widget > > GWT-Ext - very buggy and GPL licensing > > Smart-GWT - slow and memory intensive > > > > Is there any library that has the same capability of Smart-GWT and good > > performance? > > > > Thanks, > > JB > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
