I can see the logic of GWT 3.0. The browser has evolved a lot since GWT was first designed. Back in those days every browser had significant quirks and the lowest common denominator was very low. In 2015 there is less reason for a big layer between domain code and the browser. I think the same applies to JQuery etc. I also think GWT wasn't quite sure how to do layout which harms love for it. There is a fork in the Widgets for the Layout and non-Layout classes. Hence two TabPanels etc? A fight between those that wanted to do layout like Swing and those that wanted to lean on the browser renderer?
On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 8:18:14 AM UTC+1, steve Zara wrote: > > I'm puzzled as to what the disadvantages could be of GWT Widgets. They > are, after all, translated to efficient JavaScript and allow full use of > the browser. I can see that some developers might want to integrate with > JavaScript frameworks, but others, like me, start writing applications in > pure GWT and use of JavaScript is just like use of JNI in typical Java code > - for those rare things you can't do in Java, or to connect with libraries. > > I guess if there was a split there could be much more work on what many > developers seem to want, such as a cross-browser debugging toolkit that > makes use of source maps consistent and gives a better Java-style view of > variables. > > I want to see Java as a primary language for browser development, not some > secondary add-on to JavaScript frameworks. > > On 19 October 2015 at 07:39, salk31 <sal...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> Maybe there is effectively going to be a fork? So if the interest was >> there could be GWT 2.9 - GWT 2.123 >> >> I think that might represent the truth that there is one user base that >> wants to build Java apps that happen to run in a browser vs users who are >> working on products that need to squeeze everything out of the browser. >> >> The discussion about classic dev mode didn't seem very healthy >> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/google-web-toolkit/QSEjbhhHB4g >> maybe because of this split? >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:13:12 PM UTC+1, steve Zara wrote: >>> >>> I'm eager for GWT 2.8 because of Lambda support, but I can't see that my >>> company will ever use GWT 3.0 if what you write is true. We have products >>> that make substantial use of GWT Widgets, and there is no prospect of >>> re-writing to some other system. GWT without the Widgets just isn't GWT - >>> it's just a Java -> JavaScript transpiler. We also use UIBinder heavily. >>> >>> Of course, this may not be what happens. It's a symptom of what seems >>> to be a common problem with GWT - lack of clear information about what is >>> happening with the project (still no sign of GWT 2.8, and no indication of >>> when there might be a sign). >>> >>> GWT really is wonderful and has been a source of great productivity for >>> my company for many years. I really hope the heart of it isn't slashed out >>> to produce some incompatible new version. >>> >>> On Saturday, 17 October 2015 11:36:45 UTC+1, salk31 wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks Thomas, >>>> >>>> For my own use I'm going to keep a list of what I think I know >>>> http://salk31.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/gwt-30-migration.html corrections >>>> welcome. >>>> >>>> I can see why they want to reduce the scope of GWT and integrate (not >>>> build) but is such a high quality complete package in 2.7 it is a bit >>>> scary. I've had to use BroadVision, Vignette, Struts 1, Cocoon, Wicket... >>>> in the past and GWT felt like finally web development had grown up. >>>> o >>>> On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:44:25 PM UTC+1, Thomas Broyer wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think nobody has such information yet; not even Google who are >>>>> pushing for the change. They do have many apps that use widgets and RPC >>>>> today (example: Google Groups, the exact app I'm typing this message >>>>> into) >>>>> and will need to come up with a migration path for those apps too. >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 2:19:02 PM UTC+2, salk31 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there a guide somewhere of migration path to 3.0 per feature? >>>>>> >>>>>> I've been trying to follow these threads but I'm still not sure on >>>>>> the future of things like RequestFactory and Editor. They heavily depend >>>>>> on >>>>>> GWT.create and the latter depends on Widgets, are they really going away? >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a large-ish app so want to start worrying about migration >>>>>> even if we are long way off. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Sam >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 10:01:21 AM UTC+1, Jens wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where can I read that GWT RPC and widget system will be dropped with >>>>>>>> GWT 3.0? Is there a presentation / doc online? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what does it mean that GWT.create will be dropped? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And: really dropped or set as deprecated? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GWT 3.0 drops support for JSNI and GWT.create(). JSNI will be >>>>>>> replaced with JsInterop and GWT.create() will be replaced with either >>>>>>> annotation processors (generate-with case) or dependency >>>>>>> injection/System.getProperty (replace-with case). So all library code >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> GWT which depends on those two features need to be ported to the new >>>>>>> GWT >>>>>>> compiler. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Widget is probably doable but GWT-RPC might be really difficult (if >>>>>>> not impossible) because the current GWT-RPC generator asks questions >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> "give me all types that implement XYZ" which an annotation processor >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> only hardly answer (if at all). GWT-RPC might be portable if some >>>>>>> refactoring in the app using GWT-RPC is acceptable (e.g. slapping >>>>>>> annotations on DTOs instead of marking them with Serializable). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You can see videos about that topic from the GWT 2015 meet up at >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1yReUCGwGvrqscLu1EAyYRPrr0ceEHLE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slides are linked in the playlist description. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- J. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "GWT Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit/SjvCh37nahw/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
