Anything that executes natively in a browser has to be javascript. And even with obfuscation, it is completely legible to a user if they want it to be. And this isn't GWT's problem exclusively, this is an issue with all browser based client technologies that run natively.
JavaFX is simply late 1990's Java applets running in the browser, done cooler and betterer. But it's not native. And many places/users won't use web based applications that require extra "stuff". Not that I agree with that concern mind you, but that's the reality. I work for a company that has a "no applet" policy for both internal & external web applications. It's a weird world we live in..... Later, Shaffer On Feb 11, 2:13 am, Mike <mcwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jason > > Thanks for your reply. > > Agreed: GWT produces javascript source code. But this source code can > be obfuscated so it's harder to re-use in isolation. Indeed, > obfuscating the java source could help. > > Still, the lack of (the option for) source code protection may be a > reason for some developers/companies to choose for other RIA > technologies, such as JavaFX. (Afaik this uses mixed source code and > bytecode.) And that's a pity, because GWT is such an elegant > technology. Of course you can attempt to prohibit re-use in a user > license, but that doesn't give you watertight protection, and this can > be especially problematic if your revenue depends on your software > product. > > For me, this is just a hypothetical discussion at the moment, but I > plan on working on a project where this may become relevant. > > Bye > > Mike > > On Feb 11, 9:23 am, Jason Morris <lem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If GWT translated to an intermediate form, it would be so close to > > source-code that it really > > wouldn't matter. > > > Besides that, GWT compiles from source-code to source-code (although it's > > JavaScript source code). > > > I've seldom worked with a commercial enterprise product that I can't get > > the source-code for, > > especially not an API product. I would say this is more a legal issue than > > one related to the way > > GWT (or any other compiler) does things. > > > You could always obfuscate the Java source code before JARing it up, it > > offers about as much > > security as GWT does with it's Obfuscated JavaScript output. > > > Just my 2c worth. > > //J > > > Mike wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Is it possible to create a GWT-library that can be included in other > > > GWT projects *without* giving away the source code? > > > >>From what i understand, currently both the sources and the .class > > > files should be included in a library. Including the sources can be a > > > problem wrt intellectual property if the logic is nontrivial and of > > > substantial size. Why doesn't GWT translate into some intermediate > > > form, or just use javascript? > > > > Bye, Mike- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
