Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Stop calling it GWT 3.0

['Daniel Kurka' via GWT Contributors]

Hi all,

thanks for sharing your views in this discussion.

Let me add a little background:

Currently we the GWT team have decided to work on a new fast transpiler
from Java to Closure (our internal enhanced version of JavaScript). This
makes sense for a lot of reasons that I won't go into detail on, but here
are a few:

- Our cross platform applications really want a faster and better
integration with closure.
- GWT and closure share a lot of work (optimizations) and this is a good
way to not reinvent the wheel constantly

So at some point we will open source this new compiler which will have some
compatibility with the old compiler, but it will not support everything
that GWT used to support.
It is not up to Google to decide if this should be GWT 3.0, but it is up to
the steering committee to decide (this is what the steering committee is
for).
However this new compiler works out, Google has tons of GWT applications
that would need to move from GWT 2.8 to whatever this new effort is, so
coming up with a common feature set and a migration plan is on our work
list, but we will focus on that once we actually have a new compiler.

However we already know that applications that only use a certain feature
set (which might grow, as people put in more work), should be fine on both
compilers (we should discuss this after the 2.8 release). We only talked
about this so early in the process to give the community the ability to
provide feedback on our efforts, but don't panic, nothing is set in stone
and we (the steering committee) need your input on this.

-Daniel



On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:51 PM Alain Ekambi  wrote:

> Also think of people who use GWT for non web based project.
> We use GWT  for example to create native mobile apps with Titanium. And
> our customers love the  UI Binder support.
>
> Dropping UI Binder means we wont be able to support new version of GWT.
>
> Such a bad move.
>
> On 14 June 2015 at 16:22, Travis Schmidt  wrote:
>
>> I have the same concerns as the last comment.  We are a java shop and use
>> enterprise java for our back-end.  We have been using GWT for the last 9
>> years to write thin front ends for our applications.  Basically GWT RPC and
>> UiBinder are 99% of the code we deploy.  If I need to replace those with
>> Polymer, Angular and some JSON XHR, then I don't see much need to use GWT
>> going forward.  Am I mistaken or just misunderstanding something?
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:31 AM David  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm excited that you guys are planning a radical change (really). I hope
>>> it becomes more clear on what we should be using to future proof our apps.
>>> I hope we will get some usable preview of Singular (if that is really
>>> going to be a replacement).
>>>
>>> Somehow I am not totally concerned that we will need some major
>>> rewrites, it will be hard sell to management and it might mean that we need
>>> to look to different directions as well.
>>>
>>> But I am afraid that if GWT is no longer offering a complete solution
>>> like it does now (including a UI library, RPC support, i18n, UI binding,
>>> ... etc) that a lot of the advantage will be lost for me.
>>>
>>> As for naming, well it seems that non of the three letters still apply
>>> to the direction GWT is about to take.
>>> 1) no longer in Google hands (or so they clame)
>>> 2) Web not the main concern since the cross compiler is more to share
>>> code between web/android/ios apps.
>>> 3) Toolkit ... it sounds more like a transpiler to me. Everything that
>>> made it a tooltip will be scrapped.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Matic Petek 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,
  I'm also frustrated about which technologies to use on new GWT
 projects (see
 https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/google-web-toolkit/_QSayBAmeX8
 ).
 But when it comes about the name, GWT should stay. The basic idea
 around GWT is writing code in Java which is then recompile (or whatever you
 call it / do it) into JavaScript. And this idea will stick with new GWT 3.0
 (it was also very clearly emphasis is one of the talks), so the name should
 stay.
 Regards,
   Matic


 On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 11:03:08 AM UTC+2, Paul Robinson wrote:
>
> The GWT Meetup 2015 videos are very interesting.
>
>
> I can see why the proposals for GWT 3.0 have been made. However, we
> should be clear about the fact that GWT 3.0 is not just going to break a
> few little things that can easily be fixed, but break things to the point
> that it's a completely different product and there will be lots of GWT
> applications that will never be ported to the new system.
>
>
> It will be confusing to all GWT users to continue to use the name GWT
> 3.0. It would be much better to use a new name for the new system and 
> treat
> it as what it is: a new idea about how Java can be used to build modern 
> web
> application

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Stop calling it GWT 3.0

[Alain Ekambi]

Also think of people who use GWT for non web based project.
We use GWT  for example to create native mobile apps with Titanium. And our
customers love the  UI Binder support.

Dropping UI Binder means we wont be able to support new version of GWT.

Such a bad move.

On 14 June 2015 at 16:22, Travis Schmidt  wrote:

> I have the same concerns as the last comment.  We are a java shop and use
> enterprise java for our back-end.  We have been using GWT for the last 9
> years to write thin front ends for our applications.  Basically GWT RPC and
> UiBinder are 99% of the code we deploy.  If I need to replace those with
> Polymer, Angular and some JSON XHR, then I don't see much need to use GWT
> going forward.  Am I mistaken or just misunderstanding something?
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:31 AM David  wrote:
>
>> I'm excited that you guys are planning a radical change (really). I hope
>> it becomes more clear on what we should be using to future proof our apps.
>> I hope we will get some usable preview of Singular (if that is really
>> going to be a replacement).
>>
>> Somehow I am not totally concerned that we will need some major rewrites,
>> it will be hard sell to management and it might mean that we need to look
>> to different directions as well.
>>
>> But I am afraid that if GWT is no longer offering a complete solution
>> like it does now (including a UI library, RPC support, i18n, UI binding,
>> ... etc) that a lot of the advantage will be lost for me.
>>
>> As for naming, well it seems that non of the three letters still apply to
>> the direction GWT is about to take.
>> 1) no longer in Google hands (or so they clame)
>> 2) Web not the main concern since the cross compiler is more to share
>> code between web/android/ios apps.
>> 3) Toolkit ... it sounds more like a transpiler to me. Everything that
>> made it a tooltip will be scrapped.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Matic Petek 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  I'm also frustrated about which technologies to use on new GWT projects
>>> (see
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/google-web-toolkit/_QSayBAmeX8
>>> ).
>>> But when it comes about the name, GWT should stay. The basic idea around
>>> GWT is writing code in Java which is then recompile (or whatever you call
>>> it / do it) into JavaScript. And this idea will stick with new GWT 3.0 (it
>>> was also very clearly emphasis is one of the talks), so the name should
>>> stay.
>>> Regards,
>>>   Matic
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 11:03:08 AM UTC+2, Paul Robinson wrote:

 The GWT Meetup 2015 videos are very interesting.


 I can see why the proposals for GWT 3.0 have been made. However, we
 should be clear about the fact that GWT 3.0 is not just going to break a
 few little things that can easily be fixed, but break things to the point
 that it's a completely different product and there will be lots of GWT
 applications that will never be ported to the new system.


 It will be confusing to all GWT users to continue to use the name GWT
 3.0. It would be much better to use a new name for the new system and treat
 it as what it is: a new idea about how Java can be used to build modern web
 applications.


 The situation we have now is that GWT will end at 2.8 and a new thing,
 that is currently vapourware, will be coming that people are expected to
 use. There's going to be a lot of confusion and those using GWT now, as
 well as those that will use the new thing when it does exist, will all be
 served much better if everybody stops calling the new thing "GWT".


 Paul


  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "GWT Contributors" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/43ceb941-d8cc-496f-bab3-ab8219c120bf%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CABrJHW0HrjzhwAmGGsSNqzD5YFrPySE7wn%2B_Sp%3Dk-Z1a9ExiMQ%40mail.gmail.com
>> 

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Stop calling it GWT 3.0

[Travis Schmidt]

I have the same concerns as the last comment.  We are a java shop and use
enterprise java for our back-end.  We have been using GWT for the last 9
years to write thin front ends for our applications.  Basically GWT RPC and
UiBinder are 99% of the code we deploy.  If I need to replace those with
Polymer, Angular and some JSON XHR, then I don't see much need to use GWT
going forward.  Am I mistaken or just misunderstanding something?

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 4:31 AM David  wrote:

> I'm excited that you guys are planning a radical change (really). I hope
> it becomes more clear on what we should be using to future proof our apps.
> I hope we will get some usable preview of Singular (if that is really
> going to be a replacement).
>
> Somehow I am not totally concerned that we will need some major rewrites,
> it will be hard sell to management and it might mean that we need to look
> to different directions as well.
>
> But I am afraid that if GWT is no longer offering a complete solution like
> it does now (including a UI library, RPC support, i18n, UI binding, ...
> etc) that a lot of the advantage will be lost for me.
>
> As for naming, well it seems that non of the three letters still apply to
> the direction GWT is about to take.
> 1) no longer in Google hands (or so they clame)
> 2) Web not the main concern since the cross compiler is more to share code
> between web/android/ios apps.
> 3) Toolkit ... it sounds more like a transpiler to me. Everything that
> made it a tooltip will be scrapped.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Matic Petek  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>  I'm also frustrated about which technologies to use on new GWT projects
>> (see
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/google-web-toolkit/_QSayBAmeX8
>> ).
>> But when it comes about the name, GWT should stay. The basic idea around
>> GWT is writing code in Java which is then recompile (or whatever you call
>> it / do it) into JavaScript. And this idea will stick with new GWT 3.0 (it
>> was also very clearly emphasis is one of the talks), so the name should
>> stay.
>> Regards,
>>   Matic
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 11:03:08 AM UTC+2, Paul Robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> The GWT Meetup 2015 videos are very interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can see why the proposals for GWT 3.0 have been made. However, we
>>> should be clear about the fact that GWT 3.0 is not just going to break a
>>> few little things that can easily be fixed, but break things to the point
>>> that it's a completely different product and there will be lots of GWT
>>> applications that will never be ported to the new system.
>>>
>>>
>>> It will be confusing to all GWT users to continue to use the name GWT
>>> 3.0. It would be much better to use a new name for the new system and treat
>>> it as what it is: a new idea about how Java can be used to build modern web
>>> applications.
>>>
>>>
>>> The situation we have now is that GWT will end at 2.8 and a new thing,
>>> that is currently vapourware, will be coming that people are expected to
>>> use. There's going to be a lot of confusion and those using GWT now, as
>>> well as those that will use the new thing when it does exist, will all be
>>> served much better if everybody stops calling the new thing "GWT".
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/43ceb941-d8cc-496f-bab3-ab8219c120bf%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CABrJHW0HrjzhwAmGGsSNqzD5YFrPySE7wn%2B_Sp%3Dk-Z1a9ExiMQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contri

Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: Stop calling it GWT 3.0

[David]

I'm excited that you guys are planning a radical change (really). I hope it
becomes more clear on what we should be using to future proof our apps.
I hope we will get some usable preview of Singular (if that is really going
to be a replacement).

Somehow I am not totally concerned that we will need some major rewrites,
it will be hard sell to management and it might mean that we need to look
to different directions as well.

But I am afraid that if GWT is no longer offering a complete solution like
it does now (including a UI library, RPC support, i18n, UI binding, ...
etc) that a lot of the advantage will be lost for me.

As for naming, well it seems that non of the three letters still apply to
the direction GWT is about to take.
1) no longer in Google hands (or so they clame)
2) Web not the main concern since the cross compiler is more to share code
between web/android/ios apps.
3) Toolkit ... it sounds more like a transpiler to me. Everything that made
it a tooltip will be scrapped.




On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Matic Petek  wrote:

> Hi,
>  I'm also frustrated about which technologies to use on new GWT projects
> (see
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/google-web-toolkit/_QSayBAmeX8
> ).
> But when it comes about the name, GWT should stay. The basic idea around
> GWT is writing code in Java which is then recompile (or whatever you call
> it / do it) into JavaScript. And this idea will stick with new GWT 3.0 (it
> was also very clearly emphasis is one of the talks), so the name should
> stay.
> Regards,
>   Matic
>
>
> On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 11:03:08 AM UTC+2, Paul Robinson wrote:
>>
>> The GWT Meetup 2015 videos are very interesting.
>>
>>
>> I can see why the proposals for GWT 3.0 have been made. However, we
>> should be clear about the fact that GWT 3.0 is not just going to break a
>> few little things that can easily be fixed, but break things to the point
>> that it's a completely different product and there will be lots of GWT
>> applications that will never be ported to the new system.
>>
>>
>> It will be confusing to all GWT users to continue to use the name GWT
>> 3.0. It would be much better to use a new name for the new system and treat
>> it as what it is: a new idea about how Java can be used to build modern web
>> applications.
>>
>>
>> The situation we have now is that GWT will end at 2.8 and a new thing,
>> that is currently vapourware, will be coming that people are expected to
>> use. There's going to be a lot of confusion and those using GWT now, as
>> well as those that will use the new thing when it does exist, will all be
>> served much better if everybody stops calling the new thing "GWT".
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/43ceb941-d8cc-496f-bab3-ab8219c120bf%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CABrJHW0HrjzhwAmGGsSNqzD5YFrPySE7wn%2B_Sp%3Dk-Z1a9ExiMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.