To finish, my response is : no I use GWT only and it's work very well.
On 28 déc 2009, 03:16, Chris Ramsdale <cramsd...@google.com> wrote: > While the information on this thread has become a bit passionate, it is all > good and relevant information. When building large scale GWT-based apps, > developers typically sketch out the foundation and then immediately start > looking for a good widget add-on. Threads like this can be extremely useful > when deciding which route to go. > > That said, I would suggest we take this conversation offline as it has > become a bit personal. > > Thanks, > Chris > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Martin Kraus <martin.krau...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Great - Yozons is already a confused person incapable of making any > > decision by himself for *his* project and now you throw in another variable. > > I suspect this might throw him in a further endless loop. Oh, btw there's > > also gwt-mosaic and Vaadin. Make sure you evaluate those too and good luck > > trying to understand Vaadin's server side GWT rendering - not that I'm > > suggesting its good / bad. > > > Anyone who thinks GXT license / commercial model is straightforward is > > either uninformed or disillusioned. I'll just repeat what I've said earlier. > > > Ext / GXT / Ext GWT have and continue to have a very deceptive licensing > > scheme. It's licensed under GPL so you cannot use it commercially unless you > > are will to open source you client source code *and* your server side source > > code according to their very terms of use - which is very bizarre. Secondly > > even if you do end up buying a commercial license at $329 / license, you > > still do not have access to the bug fix releases. > > > The $329 / license really doesn't get you much. Version 2.0 final of ExtGWT > > was pretty much demoware with over 100 critical bugs. 4 - 6 months later > > several bugs have been fixed but license holders are not > > entitled to the latest bug fix release of 2.0.3. You not only need a > > license but you need a support subscription to download the latest stable > > version. > > > Seehttp://www.extjs.com/products/gxt/download.php > >http://www.extjs.com/forum/showthread.php?p=393316#post393316 > > > So the real cost of the license is $629 / license / year. In addition to > > this be prepared to pay frequent upgrade fees for no good reason. Users were > > required to buy upgrade licenses within less than a year of > > the ExtGWT 1.0 release because they did an *internal* refactoring to clean > > up the code and not because new features were added to justify the 2.0 > > release. Ext GWT 2.1 is just out and they are already talking about Ext GWT > > 3.0 which is essentially clean up of their internal code to support the new > > GWT listener API's. What should customers pay an upgrade fee again for > > something like this? > > > A final word of caution - read the terms of their commercial license very > > carefully and run it by your legal. It's not your typical commercial license > > that you'd expect with a commercial product. They have some really severe > > restrictions that might even require you end user / customer to buy a > > commercial license of ExtGWT. If after reading their license you still think > > its straightforward, then good luck to you. > > > Martin > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 6:08 AM, Tom Schindl <tomson...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Just to mention that there are other Widget-Projects besides SmartGWT > >> and GXT. I'm working > >> on a library called QxWT [1] which works similar to SmartGWT by > >> wrapping an JavaScript-Library. > > >> We are (yet) not at the point where GXT and SmartGWT are but we are > >> working hard on to get there. For me > >> and probably others the main interesting things the license all this > >> work is available which is in this case LGPL and EPL. > > >> In the next few days we are going to release a small bugfix release > >> and the next release will hold support for > >> optimizing the "native" library code by leveraging the tooling support > >> we get from our upstream library > >> (scheduled for first 1-2 months 2010). > > >> In alignment with QxWT release in Q1 there's going to be an release of > >> an MVP-Library which has highlevel support for Databinding > >> (to fairly any Domain-Technology you can think of by leveraging the > >> Eclipse-Databinding-Framework) and other well known > >> Eclipse Technologies like JFace-Viewers. > > >> Tom > > >> [1]http://tomsondev.bestsolution.at/2009/12/17/qxwt-1-0-0-0-released/ > > >> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:32 PM, John Armstrong <siber...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > There are a few strategies for DTO and GXT. Here are two > > >>http://www.extjs.com/helpcenter/index.jsp?topic=/com.extjs.gxt.help/h... > > >> > I also did some using Commons::BeanUtils to autopopulate a DTO since I > >> > use Cayenne on the backend and it was not serializing very cleanly. > > >> > So far I've found GXT to be pretty good to use although DataGrids have > >> > been, and continue to be, somewhat of a nightmare for me but I'll find > >> > my way through. GXT + Instantions WindowBuilder or GXT have made > >> > things mostly great on my current project. > > >> > John > > >> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Yozons Support on Gmail > >> > <yoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Thanks. I just read about that, which means it should be even easier > >> to > >> >> debug and work with for us Java folks. I like what I see in GXT so > >> far, but > >> >> admittedly very little. I'm most interested in the DTO issue and if > >> there > >> >> are good ways to send HashMaps and the like to avoid creating so many > >> of > >> >> them, or whether the benefits of DTOs outweigh it with the stronger and > >> >> simpler typing. > > >> >> -- > > >> >> 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<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > >> >> cr...@googlegroups.com> > >> . > >> >> For more options, visit this group at > >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > >> > -- > > >> > 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<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > >> cr...@googlegroups.com> > >> . > >> > For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > >> -- > > >> 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<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > >> cr...@googlegroups.com> > >> . > >> For more options, visit this group at > >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > > cr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
-- 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.
