Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Debugging in Firebug is something that I'd like to avoid as much as I can. Especially for a GWT app which usually are pretty big. The nice thing about Ext-GWT is that I don't need to do that (probably once in the blue moon on a very extreme case). Knowing the internal Ext-GWT which is written in pure GWT also helps a lot. How about SmartGWT ? Do I need to know all the JS stuffs? Eventually I do if I want to do something more than the framework has to offer. I suppose one nice thing about wrapping JS is that you only deal with one low-level code-base. Other than that, I don't see any advantage. At the end of the day, I can only wish SmartGWT takes Ext-GWT approach. Last time I did a lame comparison on Ext-GWT and GWT-ext, Ext-GWT is much snappier compare to GWT-ext. I have couple questions though: 1) How do you guys do deferred binding in SmartGWT/SmartClient? 2) How do you optimize SmartClient for a specific browser? 3) How does the serialization work? if I recall last time, in GWT-ext someone has to purchase something else? On Nov 24, 10:56 am, ckendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lest anyone get the wrong idea from francesco, when using SmartGWT you > can debug your GWT *application* code normally within hosted mode. > > If you had a need to debug the core SmartClient libraries (normal > users will not have a need to do this), you'd use debugging tools like > Firebug and SmartClient's Developer Console. Calling this being "out > in the cold" is bit of hyperbole given that SmartClient's very long > track record of success has always been based on this approach, which > works well, and will work even better with the next crop of browsers, > *all* of which have Firebug clones. > > Finally, on performance - the real world performance of enterprise > RIAs is dominated by the number of trips to the server and the > intensity of database load. In this extremely key aspect - again the > primary determinant of real-world performance - SmartClient/SmartGWT > has a very dominant lead, which is due to it's sophisticated data > binding architecture (particularly adaptive client-side operations and > intelligent data caching). By comparison, possible code size > differences caused by a different mix of JSNI vs Java code is at best > a 3rd or 4th tier performance concern, and is frequently has literally > zero impact on actual performance of delivered applications. > > Using JSNI has distinct advantages - as Sanjiv touched on, we are able > to optimize things at a very low level within the SmartClient runtime, > and we can more easily profile and tune core framework code because > it's not going through a Java->JavaScript translator. This is very > much like the mix of native C++ and higher level languages like C# > within a .NET CLR - different languages for different tasks. > Personally, for the kinds of applications that SmartGWT is designed > for, I see it as a tremendous architectural advantage. > > On Nov 24, 12:32 am, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Sanjiv, > > > thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I > > agree it might look like I was, in a way, attachingsmartGWT. It was > > not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise > > GXT. > > > It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure > > GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any > > GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing > > framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in > > the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know > > all that. > > > I think you have done a great job withsmartGWT, it looks really great > > and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. > > > Regards, > > Francesco > > > On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Fransceso, > > > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > > > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A > > > third > > > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > > > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically > > > render > > > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > > > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > > > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid > > > leaks > > > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT > > > is > > > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat andSmartGWTusers > > > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > > > across various browser. > > > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > > > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > > > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > > >
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Sanjiv, It's not a problem of taking time to load. Big load time is normal with given the size of showcase. AMD Sempron(tm) Processor 3200+, 2GB ram, Firefox 3.0.2 After the showcase is completely loaded, I click ComboBox & Family, Styled ComboBox. The second(12 items) and third combobox (3 items) takes more than one second to drop down. I got myself clicking and due to the wait time, I was thinking I clicked the wrong place, and clicked again and It dropped and hide due to 2 clicks. Imagine the normal user, operating one application with a customer in front of him waiting for services... Good luck with SmartGWT Geraldo On 24 nov, 16:56, ckendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lest anyone get the wrong idea from francesco, when using SmartGWT you > can debug your GWT *application* code normally within hosted mode. > > If you had a need to debug the core SmartClient libraries (normal > users will not have a need to do this), you'd use debugging tools like > Firebug and SmartClient's Developer Console. Calling this being "out > in the cold" is bit of hyperbole given that SmartClient's very long > track record of success has always been based on this approach, which > works well, and will work even better with the next crop of browsers, > *all* of which have Firebug clones. > > Finally, on performance - the real world performance of enterprise > RIAs is dominated by the number of trips to the server and the > intensity of database load. In this extremely key aspect - again the > primary determinant of real-world performance - SmartClient/SmartGWT > has a very dominant lead, which is due to it's sophisticated data > binding architecture (particularly adaptive client-side operations and > intelligent data caching). By comparison, possible code size > differences caused by a different mix of JSNI vs Java code is at best > a 3rd or 4th tier performance concern, and is frequently has literally > zero impact on actual performance of delivered applications. > > Using JSNI has distinct advantages - as Sanjiv touched on, we are able > to optimize things at a very low level within the SmartClient runtime, > and we can more easily profile and tune core framework code because > it's not going through a Java->JavaScript translator. This is very > much like the mix of native C++ and higher level languages like C# > within a .NET CLR - different languages for different tasks. > Personally, for the kinds of applications that SmartGWT is designed > for, I see it as a tremendous architectural advantage. > > On Nov 24, 12:32 am, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Sanjiv, > > > thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I > > agree it might look like I was, in a way, attachingsmartGWT. It was > > not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise > > GXT. > > > It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure > > GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any > > GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing > > framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in > > the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know > > all that. > > > I think you have done a great job withsmartGWT, it looks really great > > and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. > > > Regards, > > Francesco > > > On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Fransceso, > > > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > > > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A > > > third > > > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > > > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically > > > render > > > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > > > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > > > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid > > > leaks > > > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT > > > is > > > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat andSmartGWTusers > > > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > > > across various browser. > > > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > > > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > > > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > > > cannot be made inSmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > > > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > > > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be > > > difficult > > > to act on. Feel free to post on theSmartGWTforums or create an issue on > > > thesmartgwtgoogle code project. > > > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClien
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Lest anyone get the wrong idea from francesco, when using SmartGWT you can debug your GWT *application* code normally within hosted mode. If you had a need to debug the core SmartClient libraries (normal users will not have a need to do this), you'd use debugging tools like Firebug and SmartClient's Developer Console. Calling this being "out in the cold" is bit of hyperbole given that SmartClient's very long track record of success has always been based on this approach, which works well, and will work even better with the next crop of browsers, *all* of which have Firebug clones. Finally, on performance - the real world performance of enterprise RIAs is dominated by the number of trips to the server and the intensity of database load. In this extremely key aspect - again the primary determinant of real-world performance - SmartClient/SmartGWT has a very dominant lead, which is due to it's sophisticated data binding architecture (particularly adaptive client-side operations and intelligent data caching). By comparison, possible code size differences caused by a different mix of JSNI vs Java code is at best a 3rd or 4th tier performance concern, and is frequently has literally zero impact on actual performance of delivered applications. Using JSNI has distinct advantages - as Sanjiv touched on, we are able to optimize things at a very low level within the SmartClient runtime, and we can more easily profile and tune core framework code because it's not going through a Java->JavaScript translator. This is very much like the mix of native C++ and higher level languages like C# within a .NET CLR - different languages for different tasks. Personally, for the kinds of applications that SmartGWT is designed for, I see it as a tremendous architectural advantage. On Nov 24, 12:32 am, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I > agree it might look like I was, in a way, attachingsmartGWT. It was > not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise > GXT. > > It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure > GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any > GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing > framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in > the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know > all that. > > I think you have done a great job withsmartGWT, it looks really great > and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. > > Regards, > Francesco > > On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Fransceso, > > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third > > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render > > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks > > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is > > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat andSmartGWTusers > > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > > across various browser. > > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > > cannot be made inSmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult > > to act on. Feel free to post on theSmartGWTforums or create an issue on > > thesmartgwtgoogle code project. > > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely > > stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you > > will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining > > how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is > > virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only > > some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of > > any of your favorite libraries.SmartGWTwill inherit these attributes once > > its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during > > this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be > > viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be > > gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that > > the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartCli
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hi Sanjiv, It's a really great work! I'm happy to see that you continue to develop GWT frameworks and you've developed a new great tool. Actually I'm using GWT-Ext. I'll check a SmartGWT in my new projects. Best regards, Arthur On 24 nov, 09:32, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I > agree it might look like I was, in a way, attaching smartGWT. It was > not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise > GXT. > > It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure > GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any > GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing > framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in > the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know > all that. > > I think you have done a great job with smartGWT, it looks really great > and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. > > Regards, > Francesco > > On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Fransceso, > > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third > > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render > > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks > > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is > > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat and SmartGWT users > > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > > across various browser. > > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > > cannot be made in SmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult > > to act on. Feel free to post on the SmartGWT forums or create an issue on > > the smartgwt google code project. > > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely > > stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you > > will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining > > how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is > > virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only > > some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of > > any of your favorite libraries. SmartGWT will inherit these attributes once > > its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during > > this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be > > viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be > > gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that > > the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartClient JS files) and the only code > > that gets downloaded is your application code, and not any code related to > > the widget / framework. Future releases of SmartGWT will provide a GWT > > linker that only pulls in the required files so this should cut down the > > total size of the application. > > > The SmartGWT showcase has some 250 samples which is 6 times more than the > > GXT showcase so its not quite apples to apples when it comes to initial load > > time. > > > Finally please read my blog > > entryhttp://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_releasedifyou haven't > > already done so. I go over the SmartGWT fundamentals, the concept of a > > DataSource and how it will lead to a cleaner architecture and can cut > > application code significantly. I mention how a master detail page can be > > written in as little as 10 lines using a reusable DataSource definition that > > describes an entity / model class. Plus the reduced number of lines of code > > on the server as well. > > > This is the first release of SmartGWT and while it is quite stable and has > > been tested and used by early adopters for the past four weeks, users can > > expect any rough edges / bugs / performance issues / better skins etc to be > > ironed out over the course of the next few minor releases. > > > As mentioned earlier, if users have found a library that meets their needs, > > thats great and there's no need to look further. And for the others, feel > > free to evaluate SmartGWT to see if it helps meet your requirements. If you > > feel th
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hey Sanjiv Great work as always. Good to see you back - involved in GWT development work. Riyaz On Nov 24, 12:34 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Fransceso, > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat and SmartGWT users > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > across various browser. > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > cannot be made in SmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult > to act on. Feel free to post on the SmartGWT forums or create an issue on > the smartgwt google code project. > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely > stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you > will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining > how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is > virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only > some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of > any of your favorite libraries. SmartGWT will inherit these attributes once > its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during > this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be > viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be > gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that > the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartClient JS files) and the only code > that gets downloaded is your application code, and not any code related to > the widget / framework. Future releases of SmartGWT will provide a GWT > linker that only pulls in the required files so this should cut down the > total size of the application. > > The SmartGWT showcase has some 250 samples which is 6 times more than the > GXT showcase so its not quite apples to apples when it comes to initial load > time. > > Finally please read my blog > entryhttp://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_releasedif you haven't > already done so. I go over the SmartGWT fundamentals, the concept of a > DataSource and how it will lead to a cleaner architecture and can cut > application code significantly. I mention how a master detail page can be > written in as little as 10 lines using a reusable DataSource definition that > describes an entity / model class. Plus the reduced number of lines of code > on the server as well. > > This is the first release of SmartGWT and while it is quite stable and has > been tested and used by early adopters for the past four weeks, users can > expect any rough edges / bugs / performance issues / better skins etc to be > ironed out over the course of the next few minor releases. > > As mentioned earlier, if users have found a library that meets their needs, > thats great and there's no need to look further. And for the others, feel > free to evaluate SmartGWT to see if it helps meet your requirements. If you > feel that there are things that can be improved please post on the SmartGWT > forum or create an issue on the google code project page. > > Thanks, > Sanjiv > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:49 AM, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > smartGwt looks very appealing and very rich in features, but it is > > very slow. This is due to the fact that it is a JSNI wrapper around > > the Smart Client framework. This means loosing all the benefits of > > having a pure GWT implementation (I will not go into details on this). > > > I think a comparison with GXT (also known as GWT Ext, at this address > >http://extjs.com/products/gxt/) does not make any sense as GXT is a > > pure GWT feature implementation and it is lightining fast once > > compiled. > > > The only appropriate comparison would be with gwt-ext (http:// > > code.google.com/p/gwt-ext/) which is JSNI wrapper around the ExtJS > > javascript framework (developed by the same company that developed > > GXT), much like smartGwt is a JSNI wrapper around the Smart Client > > framework. > > > This
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hi Sanjiv, thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I agree it might look like I was, in a way, attaching smartGWT. It was not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise GXT. It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know all that. I think you have done a great job with smartGWT, it looks really great and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. Regards, Francesco On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Fransceso, > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat and SmartGWT users > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > across various browser. > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > cannot be made in SmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult > to act on. Feel free to post on the SmartGWT forums or create an issue on > the smartgwt google code project. > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely > stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you > will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining > how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is > virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only > some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of > any of your favorite libraries. SmartGWT will inherit these attributes once > its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during > this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be > viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be > gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that > the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartClient JS files) and the only code > that gets downloaded is your application code, and not any code related to > the widget / framework. Future releases of SmartGWT will provide a GWT > linker that only pulls in the required files so this should cut down the > total size of the application. > > The SmartGWT showcase has some 250 samples which is 6 times more than the > GXT showcase so its not quite apples to apples when it comes to initial load > time. > > Finally please read my blog > entryhttp://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_releasedif you haven't > already done so. I go over the SmartGWT fundamentals, the concept of a > DataSource and how it will lead to a cleaner architecture and can cut > application code significantly. I mention how a master detail page can be > written in as little as 10 lines using a reusable DataSource definition that > describes an entity / model class. Plus the reduced number of lines of code > on the server as well. > > This is the first release of SmartGWT and while it is quite stable and has > been tested and used by early adopters for the past four weeks, users can > expect any rough edges / bugs / performance issues / better skins etc to be > ironed out over the course of the next few minor releases. > > As mentioned earlier, if users have found a library that meets their needs, > thats great and there's no need to look further. And for the others, feel > free to evaluate SmartGWT to see if it helps meet your requirements. If you > feel that there are things that can be improved please post on the SmartGWT > forum or create an issue on the google code project page. > > Thanks, > Sanjiv > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:49 AM, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > smartGwt looks very appealing and very rich in features, but it is > > very slow. This is due to the fact that it is a JSNI wrapper around > > the Smart Client framework. This means loosing al
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hi Fransceso, If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat and SmartGWT users it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently across various browser. On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements cannot be made in SmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult to act on. Feel free to post on the SmartGWT forums or create an issue on the smartgwt google code project. On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of any of your favorite libraries. SmartGWT will inherit these attributes once its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartClient JS files) and the only code that gets downloaded is your application code, and not any code related to the widget / framework. Future releases of SmartGWT will provide a GWT linker that only pulls in the required files so this should cut down the total size of the application. The SmartGWT showcase has some 250 samples which is 6 times more than the GXT showcase so its not quite apples to apples when it comes to initial load time. Finally please read my blog entry http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released if you haven't already done so. I go over the SmartGWT fundamentals, the concept of a DataSource and how it will lead to a cleaner architecture and can cut application code significantly. I mention how a master detail page can be written in as little as 10 lines using a reusable DataSource definition that describes an entity / model class. Plus the reduced number of lines of code on the server as well. This is the first release of SmartGWT and while it is quite stable and has been tested and used by early adopters for the past four weeks, users can expect any rough edges / bugs / performance issues / better skins etc to be ironed out over the course of the next few minor releases. As mentioned earlier, if users have found a library that meets their needs, thats great and there's no need to look further. And for the others, feel free to evaluate SmartGWT to see if it helps meet your requirements. If you feel that there are things that can be improved please post on the SmartGWT forum or create an issue on the google code project page. Thanks, Sanjiv On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:49 AM, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > smartGwt looks very appealing and very rich in features, but it is > very slow. This is due to the fact that it is a JSNI wrapper around > the Smart Client framework. This means loosing all the benefits of > having a pure GWT implementation (I will not go into details on this). > > I think a comparison with GXT (also known as GWT Ext, at this address > http://extjs.com/products/gxt/) does not make any sense as GXT is a > pure GWT feature implementation and it is lightining fast once > compiled. > > The only appropriate comparison would be with gwt-ext (http:// > code.google.com/p/gwt-ext/) which is JSNI wrapper around the ExtJS > javascript framework (developed by the same company that developed > GXT), much like smartGwt is a JSNI wrapper around the Smart Client > framework. > > This forum is full of people complaining about how slow and cumbersome > gwt-ext is, and I think exactly the same problems will be encountered > with smartGwt.On the other hand GXT is not affected by any of these > issues. True, GXT at the moment is not as rich in features at the > moment, but they are getting there. >
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hello, smartGwt looks very appealing and very rich in features, but it is very slow. This is due to the fact that it is a JSNI wrapper around the Smart Client framework. This means loosing all the benefits of having a pure GWT implementation (I will not go into details on this). I think a comparison with GXT (also known as GWT Ext, at this address http://extjs.com/products/gxt/) does not make any sense as GXT is a pure GWT feature implementation and it is lightining fast once compiled. The only appropriate comparison would be with gwt-ext (http:// code.google.com/p/gwt-ext/) which is JSNI wrapper around the ExtJS javascript framework (developed by the same company that developed GXT), much like smartGwt is a JSNI wrapper around the Smart Client framework. This forum is full of people complaining about how slow and cumbersome gwt-ext is, and I think exactly the same problems will be encountered with smartGwt.On the other hand GXT is not affected by any of these issues. True, GXT at the moment is not as rich in features at the moment, but they are getting there. I do not work for the ExtJS company, I only talk from experience. I used the JavaSciprt ExtJS framework for a big project for a full year and I understand exactly when people say the documentation is poor and performance slow. Having embranced GWT to progress and to make my life easier, I would never want to to have the same problems again with Js frameworks, even less with GWT frameworks with embed the same old Js issues, like gwt-ext or smartGWT. GXT is a completely different matter and I think it is a top framework. I have been using it for a few months now and never gave me any major issues. It is a pure GWT implementation, no javaScriptObject or JSNI. Period. Huge credit to Sanjiv for his work on smartGWT, but personally I think this is the wrong approach to any GWT framework. JSNI is very useful if used to integrate the odd js function here and there, not as a foundation to a framework itself. Regards, Francesco On Nov 23, 10:33 am, "Juan Backson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am wondering if the performance is due to too many items inside the demo > or it is just slower than gwt-ext? In gwt-ext, the demo is much smaller. > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM, rakesh wagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > great job Sanjeev. Keep up the good work. Always love smart-client. > > Smart client is much better compared to ext-js as far as licensing is > > concerned. However the showcase looks little slow compared to the > > original js based smart-client as well as gwt-ext. > > > Thanks! > > > On Nov 22, 6:48 pm, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Excellent Job! > > > > some things are rough around the edges but overall this release is > > > impressive! Gotta fix those image downloads though. And adding a > > > couple of the "standard" schemes wouldn't hurt. But you already > > > mentioned these things in your release announcement post anyway. Can't > > > wait. > > > > Cool stuff! > > > > On Nov 22, 8:32 am, ART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This looks cool. > > > > Ann. > > > > > On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > > > > > Here is the release announcement : > >http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > > > > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > > > > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > > > > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > > > > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat and > > works > > > > > great. > > > > > > Seehttp:// > > code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Sanjiv --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Hi, I am wondering if the performance is due to too many items inside the demo or it is just slower than gwt-ext? In gwt-ext, the demo is much smaller. On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM, rakesh wagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > great job Sanjeev. Keep up the good work. Always love smart-client. > Smart client is much better compared to ext-js as far as licensing is > concerned. However the showcase looks little slow compared to the > original js based smart-client as well as gwt-ext. > > Thanks! > > On Nov 22, 6:48 pm, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Excellent Job! > > > > some things are rough around the edges but overall this release is > > impressive! Gotta fix those image downloads though. And adding a > > couple of the "standard" schemes wouldn't hurt. But you already > > mentioned these things in your release announcement post anyway. Can't > > wait. > > > > Cool stuff! > > > > On Nov 22, 8:32 am, ART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This looks cool. > > > Ann. > > > > > On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > > > > > Here is the release announcement : > http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > > > > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > > > > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > > > > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > > > > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat and > works > > > > great. > > > > > > Seehttp:// > code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Sanjiv > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
great job Sanjeev. Keep up the good work. Always love smart-client. Smart client is much better compared to ext-js as far as licensing is concerned. However the showcase looks little slow compared to the original js based smart-client as well as gwt-ext. Thanks! On Nov 22, 6:48 pm, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excellent Job! > > some things are rough around the edges but overall this release is > impressive! Gotta fix those image downloads though. And adding a > couple of the "standard" schemes wouldn't hurt. But you already > mentioned these things in your release announcement post anyway. Can't > wait. > > Cool stuff! > > On Nov 22, 8:32 am, ART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This looks cool. > > Ann. > > > On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > > > Here is the release announcement > > > :http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat and works > > > great. > > > > Seehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > > > Thanks, > > > Sanjiv --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Excellent Job! some things are rough around the edges but overall this release is impressive! Gotta fix those image downloads though. And adding a couple of the "standard" schemes wouldn't hurt. But you already mentioned these things in your release announcement post anyway. Can't wait. Cool stuff! On Nov 22, 8:32 am, ART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This looks cool. > Ann. > > On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > > Here is the release announcement > > :http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat and works > > great. > > > Seehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > > Thanks, > > Sanjiv --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
This looks cool. Ann. On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > Here is the release announcement > :http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat and works > great. > > Seehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > Thanks, > Sanjiv --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Beside the licence problems, why? gwt-ext seems to be a little bit faster to me. On Nov 21, 10:11 pm, Vinay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SmartGWT Showcase looks awesome. I think GWT-Ext will be out ;-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
SmartGWT Showcase looks awesome. I think GWT-Ext will be out ;-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Is this going to be the end of older GWT-Ext library? :-)) Cheers, Sorinel --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
Have you found the showcase responsive enough for use in intensive data entry applications ? Thanks, Geraldo On 19 nov, 00:13, rlaferla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's awesome. Is it native Java/GWT or a JavaScript wrapper? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: SmartGWT 1.0 Released
That's awesome. Is it native Java/GWT or a JavaScript wrapper? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
