Davide, GWT is not really made to be deployed as multiple GWT compilation units. This is done for the sake of performance.
I had similar requirements as you I needed to be able to co-host multiple GWT applications on one page (a portal system) but they are compiled separately and developed by other teams. There was also the need to communicate between those applications. GWT can host multiple GWT applications on one page. The code is loaded in an IFrame so there is no risk that the generated classes would clash. But at the same time, you can not just simply pass those objects between the GWT applications since the same Java class does not generate the identically named JS class. So, I am using a JSNI API that allows me to pass some basic object types between the different applications (JS Overlays are nice for that purpose). Another thing to consider is styling. If you use plain CSS stylesheets make sure that they can coexist. If you use CssResources, then you need to make sure that the generated CSS names do not clash, that is possible because you can define a prefix that should be used by the generator (or even implement your own naming mechanism). The 2b option you describe is interesting, but no I did not try to go down that road. That would actually mean that we need to ship our sources to the customers, which is not allowed in our case. David On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Davide Cavestro <davide.caves...@gmail.com>wrote: > I have to support the deployment of additional modules in order to > dynamically extend my employer's GWT application, adding new features or > customizing the existing ones. > I mean *something like a plugin system which dynamically loads and > executes new code deployed at any point of time*. > > The basic application is composed by several logical modules: they are > compiled together and make heavy use of GIN and DFN code splitting. > So I'm looking for a way to make the additional modules coexist with the > basic application, hence supplying additional features *within the same > HTML host page* of the original application. > > At server side I have a Spring web MVC application. In order to deploy the > additional modules it is acceptable having to restart the web application > (if needed), while it is not acceptable having to redeploy the entire war > application. i.e. I could introduce some dedicated controllers to serve > contents from additional modules at the appropriate URIs. > > I'd like to know: > 1) is there *any well established pattern for this kind of scenario?* > 2) is there any certainty that compiling two modules separately then I > can run them into the same HTML host page without any clash? i.e. separate > GWT compiler executions on separate modules could generate globally-scoped > javascript variables with the same name? > 2.a) if I can compile them separately, then I should find a way to > make the two applications communicate, potentially sharing references of > object managed by GIN. Is it feasible? > 2.b) if I cannot compile them separately, then is there any > alternative to recompile them before the deploy? i.e. did anyone > successfully integrate the GWT compiler or the superdevmode at the server > side for production uses? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
