@Jeff, If you went with "straight-up GWT" what did you do for all the various widgets that otherwise seem powerful and useful?
For example, what are your replacements for: 1) Paging grid/tables for showing lists of objects/data that users can then click on to view/edit in detail for typical CRUD operations? I found PagingScrollTable to be a lot of work for a simple object (though I suppose I can just clone after I've built that one), and now it gives lots of warnings under GWT 2.0, and it sounds like they are re-architecting it now so no doubt the future holds something brighter, but perhaps entirely new and not really compatible. 2) Popup windows with title and close buttons in the "top area that you click on to drag around"? I've used DialogBox, and it doesn't allow for even a simple close button to appear in the title bar. 3) Drag and drop items from one list to another list, such as when configuring objects that need to select multiple items from a defined list of pre-built items (like adding features or permissions or users from one list so it can be assigned to another object for use/reference). Your approach surely has the most appeal, but wonder how much you had to write instead of getting a widget toolkit. At the same time, I prefer not to use a distinct widget toolkit because it just seems to add another layer that perhaps will be slowly made less significant as GWT matures, and they all seem to have licensing issues. I am checking with Ext now on their definition of "developer" to see if the complaints are still real or whether they are holdovers from earlier. GPL is fine for our open source product, but we also expect to do commercial licensing, and then it gets complicated if we're somehow held to a standard that all users are developers and must have a Ext GWT license. I am fine to pay for our developers who write our UI and use their library, but it gets murky with their "indirect developer" language that is not defined anywhere and the license itself doesn't even mention it. As for SmartGWT, their LGPL product looks great and would pose no issue, but if you want their more advanced stuff for server-side code, you'd need to go commercial, which itself is not bad for us, but then it makes it impossible for us to offer our code as open source -- we want to do both open source for the open source community, but know that we have to offer commercial licenses to our business customers who demand that their systems be allowed to be proprietary. -- 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-tool...@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.
