Fair enough, bkardell. GWT cannot optimize code that cannot be compiled together. If it's a requirement for you that each widget is a separate JavaScript, then you'd have to compile a few and see whether the GWT optimizations such as dead code elimination outweigh the effects of compiling multiple times the commonly used parts of the shared libraries.
GWT's sweet spot, IMHO, is building rich Internet applications that feel like a desktop app but run in a browser. GWT can break the app into multiple pieces using code splitting (runAsync), but if the pieces aren't part of the same compile as in your case, that won't help. /dmc On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:31 PM, bkard...@gmail.com <bkard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, a few things. > > 1) Thanks for the response. > 2) Please have some patience, I'm really trying my best to communicate > what seems to me a perfectly rational question that I feel like I am > directing at exactly the right people. If I come across unclearly, I > will be more than happy to try to clarify. > 3) The examples that both @clintjhill and I gave specified that these > are disparate code bases that _can not_ be compiled together. It is > possible to specify things that can and can't be used, even an API - > but they aren't owned by the same entity... That's really why I tried > to use "something like" iGoogle as an example because it's sort of the > most analogous thing I can think of... It's a Mashup situation where > there can potentially be many, many components shoved together from > disparate (but trusted) sources. If I recall, I think that the gadget > container actually _does_ provide some common API for tabs and rpc and > things... I'm not sure if that's re-incuded every time, but that's the > idea - do we have to reinclude it every time? I think that > @clintjhill's example is more literal/concise so if you are more > comfortable with that, the only addition I would like to make is that > it is perhaps a little too small (not just repeated, but repeated > potentially many, many times) to demonstrate my concern.... > 4) Note the end of the question above "... if the GWT team had such a > problem at hand - would they choose GWT" is followed immediately by > "... and if so, how would they deal with the implications spelled out > above?" > > I just want to say... There are languages and tools that I use, that I > _love_ in fact, which would just be the wrong choice if that's not the > problem space that they are focused on solving. I think, if I had no > desire to use GWT - why would I be asking...right? > > -- > 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. > > -- David Chandler Developer Programs Engineer, Google Web Toolkit http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/ -- 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.
