What is about Gadgets with Apache Shindig <http://shindig.apache.org/>?
You can also use GWT 2.0's code splitting feature. Compile one big app, but split the resulting JavaScript code into different modules. You can then load only the required ones into the browser. The only problem is, that you have to recompile the whole big app each time code has changed. Regards Jan Ehrhardt 2010/4/6 Jon Vaughan <jsvaug...@gmail.com> > Hi all. > > I'm beginning to build a set of GWT applications for a client. > > The clients customers will purchase a set of these applications (not > necessarily all of them) and when deployed these applications will > work together (imagine, for example, a 'Contacts' app, a 'Billing' > app, 'Timerecording' etc), linking back and forward between > information in each. > > The client has a requirement that each app is independently > deployable. This would rule out the option of a monolithic compile > despite its many advantages (optimization, memory footprint etc) > > - However they would also like the apps to all exist in a single > window, to prevent confusion about pop-ups etc > - And all of this has to work on relatively low powered machines and > be IE6 compatible > > Possible options are iframes or a portal framework but in my view both > of those are fairly horrible. Iframes are going to mean history and > inter app communication issues. Portal frameworks mean an extra layer > of effort, especially working out how to integrate the inter-portal > communication with gwt. > > Alternatively I need to work out how to circumvent their independently > deployable requirement. Certainly there are enormous advantages to > the single GWT compile. The problem for the client is that if the UI > has a common custom widget used in a couple of the apps, modifying it > would mean retesting all apps that make use of it. One solution to > this I suppose is total codebase independence, with no common > dependencies, or versioned widgets somehow, and I could argue for that > style of approach. > > So I was wondering, does anyone have any alternative ideas, or > thoughts about how they would approach the same situation > > Thanks > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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%2bunsubscr...@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.
