[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Allow UiBinder to use any ClientBundle in embedded ui:style CSS, so I can reuse my images actually, can't believe it's not working. On Dec 17 2009, 3:25 pm, FDG fdigiuse...@gmail.com wrote: - remove actual UiBinder limitations - supports printing using css media (so wrap themes around a @media screen) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
That should work already. Are you using @UiField(provided - true)? Please file an issue with details. rjrjr On Feb 15, 2010 3:36 AM, skrat dusan.malia...@gmail.com wrote: Allow UiBinder to use any ClientBundle in embedded ui:style CSS, so I can reuse my images actually, can't believe it's not working. On Dec 17 2009, 3:25 pm, FDG fdigiuse...@gmail.com wrote: - remove actual UiBinder limitations ... -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 for OSGi support -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
I mean to say, gwt port for protocol buffer. It is used in google wave. http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html Regards, Allahbaksh On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Miroslav Pokorny miroslav.poko...@gmail.com wrote: What has protocol buffers got to do with gwt ? There's nothing stopping one from using it on the server ? What utility does it add to the clientside ? Where exactly does it fit in the grand ecoscape ? On 23/01/2010, at 2:19 PM, Allahbaksh Asadullah a.allahba...@gmail.com wrote: +1 websocket +1 protocol buffer Allahbaksh On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Xavier Mehaut xavier.meh...@gmail.com xavier.meh...@gmail.com wrote: +1 websockets +1 javafx declarative syntax Le 22 janv. 2010 à 14:50, Célio ccid...@gmail.comccid...@gmail.com a écrit : +1 server push (cometd) +1 dependency injection (gin?) On 16 dez 2009, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 for DataBinding. JSR 295 support would be great, like http://code.google.com/p/gwt-beans-binding/ does +1 for JSR303 (validation), there is allready a proof of concept available at http://code.google.com/p/gwt-validation/ On 17 déc 2009, 12:07, Rudy Krol rudy.k...@gmail.com wrote: My letter to Santa Claus ;) 1. A real DataGrid (maybe integrate ScrollTable from gwt-incubator) 2. DataBinding Validation 3. UiBinder Eclipse plugin 4. Integrate more widgets from gwt-incubator (Spinner, Sliderbar, Glasspanel, CollapsiblePanel, Canvas, etc.) and others (gwt-dnd) 5. Improve animation effects (fade, slide, etc.) 6. Provide a MVP framework Rudy On Dec 17, 11:09 am, Matteo matteo.fiande...@gmail.com wrote: +1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http... And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 server push (cometd) +1 dependency injection (gin?) On 16 dez 2009, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 websockets +1 javafx declarative syntax Le 22 janv. 2010 à 14:50, Célio ccid...@gmail.com a écrit : +1 server push (cometd) +1 dependency injection (gin?) On 16 dez 2009, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 websocket +1 protocol buffer Allahbaksh On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Xavier Mehaut xavier.meh...@gmail.comwrote: +1 websockets +1 javafx declarative syntax Le 22 janv. 2010 à 14:50, Célio ccid...@gmail.com a écrit : +1 server push (cometd) +1 dependency injection (gin?) On 16 dez 2009, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
What has protocol buffers got to do with gwt ? There's nothing stopping one from using it on the server ? What utility does it add to the clientside ? Where exactly does it fit in the grand ecoscape ? On 23/01/2010, at 2:19 PM, Allahbaksh Asadullah a.allahba...@gmail.com wrote: +1 websocket +1 protocol buffer Allahbaksh On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Xavier Mehaut xavier.meh...@gmail.com wrote: +1 websockets +1 javafx declarative syntax Le 22 janv. 2010 à 14:50, Célio ccid...@gmail.com a écrit : +1 server push (cometd) +1 dependency injection (gin?) On 16 dez 2009, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 JavaFX/Code GUI Streamlining instead of UIBinder Some mechanism to allow for publishing client/js friendly variants of server side objects to clean up need for DTO's. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
There's Eclipse Databinding available for GWT which provides the Databinding + Validation infrastructure. Ad 2) See http://tomsondev.bestsolution.at/2009/06/27/eclipse-databinding-3-5-for-gwt/ for an example implementation but please note that the foundation is completely agnostic of the domain and UI- Technology you are using (there are e.g. Databinding implementation for SWT, Qt, Swing, GWT on the UI-side and JavaBeans, POJOs and EMF-Objects available). The sources are available under EPL. Ad 6) I'm working on an MVP projects named UFaceKit which builds upon the foundation I described above. The project us developed at Eclipse.org and there's some information available at http://wiki.eclipse.org/UFaceKit and I plan to work on it now that I've finished my work on QxWT (http://tomsondev.bestsolution.at/2009/12/17/qxwt-1-0-0-0-released/) which is going to build the foundation for one possible UFaceKit- Implementation for GWT. If people or the GWT team are interested on the it don't hestitate to contact me at tom dot schindl (at) bestsolution dot at Tom On 17 Dez., 12:07, Rudy Krol rudy.k...@gmail.com wrote: My letter to Santa Claus ;) 1. A real DataGrid (maybe integrate ScrollTable from gwt-incubator) 2. DataBinding Validation 3. UiBinder Eclipse plugin 4. Integrate more widgets from gwt-incubator (Spinner, Sliderbar, Glasspanel, CollapsiblePanel, Canvas, etc.) and others (gwt-dnd) 5. Improve animation effects (fade, slide, etc.) 6. Provide a MVP framework Rudy On Dec 17, 11:09 am, Matteo matteo.fiande...@gmail.com wrote: +1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http... And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
- clean EventBus implementation with transparents server-push events On 19 Dic, 00:29, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - runtime modularity to avoid monolitic compilations On 16 Dic, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
like ? On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:29 AM, federico federico.mona...@gmail.comwrote: - clean EventBus implementation with transparents server-push events On 19 Dic, 00:29, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - runtime modularity to avoid monolitic compilations On 16 Dic, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- mP -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 for databinding +1 for better grids +1 for enterprise examples, (CRUD applications) Why not isolate the event framework to use it in non GWT projects? - Andrés -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
See http://www.jboss.org/errai it has a heterogenous EventBus implementation (client GWT or Server), uses Comet when available, etc -Ray On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - clean EventBus implementation with transparents server-push events On 19 Dic, 00:29, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - runtime modularity to avoid monolitic compilations On 16 Dic, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Websockets Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 19 déc. 2009 à 22:16, Miroslav Pokorny miroslav.poko...@gmail.com a écrit : like ? On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:29 AM, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - clean EventBus implementation with transparents server-push events On 19 Dic, 00:29, federico federico.mona...@gmail.com wrote: - runtime modularity to avoid monolitic compilations On 16 Dic, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- mP -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Arthur, No, we are not closing DevMode. Our client app is not small. Refreshing DevMode in 2.0 takes 20-30 seconds on a decent multi-core workstation. Often, we are only able to refresh a handful of times before we start running into out-of-memory exceptions and browser crashes (FF 3.5.6). I don't want to sound unappreciative - DevMode in 2.0 is MUCH MUCH faster than before. We are very excited about this. However, I rarely need to use the debugger in the actual client. Most of the time I just want to refresh the layout or test the usability of a widget. For this, DevMode is overkill and, in fact, useless for testing real world UI latency. Draft Compile is a wonderful idea but even it takes over a minute to compile a single permutation of our app. At the end of the day, all i want to do is make a small change to a widget and refresh my browser to test the layout, look and feel, and usability. over and over and over. Sometimes i might need to debug my ui logic but not most of the time. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
same problems unfortunately 2009/12/18 Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com Arthur, No, we are not closing DevMode. Our client app is not small. Refreshing DevMode in 2.0 takes 20-30 seconds on a decent multi-core workstation. Often, we are only able to refresh a handful of times before we start running into out-of-memory exceptions and browser crashes (FF 3.5.6). I don't want to sound unappreciative - DevMode in 2.0 is MUCH MUCH faster than before. We are very excited about this. However, I rarely need to use the debugger in the actual client. Most of the time I just want to refresh the layout or test the usability of a widget. For this, DevMode is overkill and, in fact, useless for testing real world UI latency. Draft Compile is a wonderful idea but even it takes over a minute to compile a single permutation of our app. At the end of the day, all i want to do is make a small change to a widget and refresh my browser to test the layout, look and feel, and usability. over and over and over. Sometimes i might need to debug my ui logic but not most of the time. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Thanks for the feedback Brad. We've talked internally about an idea for instant compile where the workflow would be essentially like hosted mode, except it would very quickly translate your code into JavaScript with zero optimizations. It sounds like there might be some interest in this. (Of course, we also want to make hosted mode much faster than it is even in 2.0!) On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com wrote: Arthur, No, we are not closing DevMode. Our client app is not small. Refreshing DevMode in 2.0 takes 20-30 seconds on a decent multi-core workstation. Often, we are only able to refresh a handful of times before we start running into out-of-memory exceptions and browser crashes (FF 3.5.6). I don't want to sound unappreciative - DevMode in 2.0 is MUCH MUCH faster than before. We are very excited about this. However, I rarely need to use the debugger in the actual client. Most of the time I just want to refresh the layout or test the usability of a widget. For this, DevMode is overkill and, in fact, useless for testing real world UI latency. Draft Compile is a wonderful idea but even it takes over a minute to compile a single permutation of our app. At the end of the day, all i want to do is make a small change to a widget and refresh my browser to test the layout, look and feel, and usability. over and over and over. Sometimes i might need to debug my ui logic but not most of the time. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Scott, That sounds great! It's reassuring to know y'all are thinking about this. I know it's not an easy problem to solve. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
shortly, you intend to make a kind of incremental compilationnot of course in .class but .js. It seems good to me. 2009/12/18 Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com Scott, That sounds great! It's reassuring to know y'all are thinking about this. I know it's not an easy problem to solve. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
- Wrap Google Closure Library (http://code.google.com/closure/ library/) On 16 Dic, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Hey Brad, Sorry about that, I've just seen a number of people in the IRC channel asking about why DevMode was so slow and it turned out they had been closing it after each check. I just wanted to throw that comment up there for those that didn't know. I guess our apps haven't got to that size yet All the best, -- Arthur Kalmenson On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com wrote: Arthur, No, we are not closing DevMode. Our client app is not small. Refreshing DevMode in 2.0 takes 20-30 seconds on a decent multi-core workstation. Often, we are only able to refresh a handful of times before we start running into out-of-memory exceptions and browser crashes (FF 3.5.6). I don't want to sound unappreciative - DevMode in 2.0 is MUCH MUCH faster than before. We are very excited about this. However, I rarely need to use the debugger in the actual client. Most of the time I just want to refresh the layout or test the usability of a widget. For this, DevMode is overkill and, in fact, useless for testing real world UI latency. Draft Compile is a wonderful idea but even it takes over a minute to compile a single permutation of our app. At the end of the day, all i want to do is make a small change to a widget and refresh my browser to test the layout, look and feel, and usability. over and over and over. Sometimes i might need to debug my ui logic but not most of the time. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Has everyone responding in this thread been checking the issue tracker, staring issues they want to see resolved, and entering new issues where they don't yet exist in the tracker? I know several of the requests mentioned in this thread are already in there. http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/list On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Chris chrish...@gmail.com wrote: I would encourage any effort to get an instant compile feature in dev mode. When designing the GUI and tweaking a widget here or there or css, a quick turn around would be a huge win. Right now, tweaking the GUI is a cumbersome process. Chris On Dec 18, 10:16 am, Scott Blum sco...@google.com wrote: Thanks for the feedback Brad. We've talked internally about an idea for instant compile where the workflow would be essentially like hosted mode, except it would very quickly translate your code into JavaScript with zero optimizations. It sounds like there might be some interest in this. (Of course, we also want to make hosted mode much faster than it is even in 2.0!) On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com wrote: Arthur, No, we are not closing DevMode. Our client app is not small. Refreshing DevMode in 2.0 takes 20-30 seconds on a decent multi-core workstation. Often, we are only able to refresh a handful of times before we start running into out-of-memory exceptions and browser crashes (FF 3.5.6). I don't want to sound unappreciative - DevMode in 2.0 is MUCH MUCH faster than before. We are very excited about this. However, I rarely need to use the debugger in the actual client. Most of the time I just want to refresh the layout or test the usability of a widget. For this, DevMode is overkill and, in fact, useless for testing real world UI latency. Draft Compile is a wonderful idea but even it takes over a minute to compile a single permutation of our app. At the end of the day, all i want to do is make a small change to a widget and refresh my browser to test the layout, look and feel, and usability. over and over and over. Sometimes i might need to debug my ui logic but not most of the time. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Arthur, It's a good tip, especially when hot swap tells you that you need to restart. For our app, we resorted to creating sandbox GWT entry points to develop widgets in isolation. This gave us usable compile/refresh times but I still long for the days when I could just press F5 to refresh the whole thing. :) Another wish list item: a less API-invasive approach to protecting against XSRF attacks (see: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/web/security-for-gwt-applications). It seems to me that XSRF checks could be baked into the RPC plumbing, perhaps triggered by annotations on the RPC service interface. Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Brad Leupen qcomps...@gmail.com wrote: Another wish list item: a less API-invasive approach to protecting against XSRF attacks (see: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/web/security-for-gwt-applications ). It seems to me that XSRF checks could be baked into the RPC plumbing, perhaps triggered by annotations on the RPC service interface. The plan for this is at http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/RpcAuth though I have no timetable for when it will get implemented. -- John A. Tamplin Software Engineer (GWT), Google -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Hi all, I wish the GWT team would focus on all the things that force us to use such awful third-party libraries as Ext-GWT: -more appealing built-in themes -richer components, like data grids with remote pagination -data binding Ext-GWT is full of annoyances but it has good looking widgets, easy-to- use grids (after you have fixed the quirks) and kind-of-working data binding. I would drop it in a blink if GWT offered those features. Of course I wouldn't mind if the compiler was faster, but so far we can manage with dev mode and the occasional GWT compilation. Olivier -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Definitely, the most important thing for me is fix the bugs and above all publish an excellent documentation and ... +1 for Databinding Validation +1 for a nice DataGrid +1 for nicer widgets Great job on GWT 2.0 On 16 dez, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
I would like more control over which classes/packages were actually sucked into a module for compilation. I appreciate there are workarounds like sticking diff java files under diff src dirs but that's ugly. I don't like how including a particular package also sucks in sub packages. I think it wouldbe better if it only did the specific pkg. Further ctrl over individually classes within an included pkg would be great. I have noticed rhat google collections marks a few classes with various annonations like gwt-compatible and gwt-not-compatible. It would be great if the compiler honoured these. Even finer grained ctrl over individual methods would be great.i f it worked like suppress warnings but instructed the compiler to ignore invompatible code that would be great. - Use cases include stuff like a class with lots of static helpers some intended just for the server others that also are useful under gwt. - sometimes it's usegful to overload a method to take types that are irrelevant or wrong in gwt - eg inputstream. Again one could take that helper and stick it somewhere else buts it's ugly to have the disconnect when they really belong together. Hyh On 19/12/2009, at 3:29 AM, Mauro mauro.no...@gmail.com wrote: Definitely, the most important thing for me is fix the bugs and above all publish an excellent documentation and ... +1 for Databinding Validation +1 for a nice DataGrid +1 for nicer widgets Great job on GWT 2.0 On 16 dez, 10:42, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2739http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3409 And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 for Databinding Validation +1 for a nice DataGrid +1 for nicer widgets On Dec 17, 10:09 am, Matteo matteo.fiande...@gmail.com wrote: +1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http... And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Version 2.0 tackled nearly all problems I had with GWT. Here is the
rest that keeps me from being fully productive with it:
- bidirectional UIBinder with mini expression language to completely
remove programmatic UI, e.g.:
MyWidget.java:
class MyWidget extends DataboundComposite{
public PropertyListString customers = ...;
MyWidget(ListString customers){
// uses some inherited method to init the property
this.customers = setProperty(customers);
// a DataBoundComposite parses not only the ui.xml file
// but also fills it with initialized properties
initWidget(Uibinderstuff...);
}
}
MyWidget.ui.xml:
ui:UiBinder xmlns:ui=urn:ui:com.google.gwt.uibinder
xmlns:g=urn:import:com.google.gwt.user.client.ui
g:HTMLPanel
ul
g:each property=customers var=customer
li{customer}/li
/g:each
/ul
/g:HTMLPanel
/ui:UiBinder
this would make working with FlexTable a lot more declarative when
displaying a custom tabular data widget that does not fit into the
default DataGrid-thinking.
- complement the big picture with an app framework built around Ray
Ryan's architecture-talk (no one should have to reinvent a
PlaceManager like I did after moving to 2.0 ;) )
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 to widget improvements
+1 to removing listeners - though this is a breaking change on a minor
release?
+1 to bug fixes - all bugs, especially the ones I've starred :)
+1 to data binding + validation
On Dec 17, 5:28 am, DanielK dkim...@googlemail.com wrote:
Version 2.0 tackled nearly all problems I had with GWT. Here is the
rest that keeps me from being fully productive with it:
- bidirectional UIBinder with mini expression language to completely
remove programmatic UI, e.g.:
MyWidget.java:
class MyWidget extends DataboundComposite{
public PropertyListString customers = ...;
MyWidget(ListString customers){
// uses some inherited method to init the property
this.customers = setProperty(customers);
// a DataBoundComposite parses not only the ui.xml file
// but also fills it with initialized properties
initWidget(Uibinderstuff...);
}
}
MyWidget.ui.xml:
ui:UiBinder xmlns:ui=urn:ui:com.google.gwt.uibinder
xmlns:g=urn:import:com.google.gwt.user.client.ui
g:HTMLPanel
ul
g:each property=customers var=customer
li{customer}/li
/g:each
/ul
/g:HTMLPanel
/ui:UiBinder
this would make working with FlexTable a lot more declarative when
displaying a custom tabular data widget that does not fit into the
default DataGrid-thinking.
- complement the big picture with an app framework built around Ray
Ryan's architecture-talk (no one should have to reinvent a
PlaceManager like I did after moving to 2.0 ;) )
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Ability to wire a set of related many entities in the data binding declaration. For example, an Account entity. An Account has a set of related many AccountAddress entities. The data-binding framework should be able to map these AccountAddress entities to a set of nested form control groups represented in say a TabbedWidget. Moreover, the ability to add/remove such child entities is assumed. This is a common use-case that deserves first class support as opposed to only providing a monolithic mapping strategy. I think a good data-binding modeling strategy is in the gwittr framework: http://code.google.com/p/gwittir/wiki/Binding my 2 cents, Jon On Dec 16, 9:01 am, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 nice datagrid +1 remove deprecated listeners -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
- remove actual UiBinder limitations - supports printing using css media (so wrap themes around a @media screen) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
hi, here is my wishlist: +1 UiBinder WYSIWYG Eclipse plugin +1 DataBinding Validation +1 DataGrid +1 multiple window management framework (forground/background like gwt-mosaic windowpanel (zIndex based), docking, maximize, etc ...) time -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Here are the enhancements I would like to have in GWT : * incremental compilation to have the same ease of use than with php or jsp ; we have for instance an internal application where we have merged php and gwt, and (from the ease of modification point of view) it is always simpler to make a change or a patch on the php code than the gwt one. Incemental compilation should render these task simpler * compilation starting from .class and not from .java ; we could use gwt with code written in scala, groovy or better javafx * include the javafx syntax in gwt for describing UI instead of UIBinder (I hate xml for doing UI) ; we could even use the bind javafx feature in gwt, which could improve greatly the way of writing applications * refactoring theme management ; it fits not well with css way of doing things ; it is to complicated and not flexible enough * include html5 websockets * desktop mode gwt like AIR ou Silverlight * notion of timeline and states like in javafx or flash * eclipse/netbeans ui composer plugin * mobile and desktop profiles * launch the browser and set the url in it when running an application in development mode * OSGI-like mode to perfomr modularity and enabling to load only some features for a specific user * ... regards Xavier On 16 déc, 19:49, Matt Mastracci matt...@mastracci.com wrote: GWT 2.0 was so awesome, it'll be hard to top any of the new stuff with my feature wishlist. A few things I'd like: - moving as many compiler properties as possible into configuration properties so we can build an instrumented release (with type cast checking, assertions, emulated stack traces) at the same time as release that can be turned on via - A DOM object to represent the window - Less of a hit on first load in development mode - New linker that uses iframes with dynamic scripts and a more generic, more easily reusable hosted mode script Matt. On 2009-12-16, at 10:01 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
-A nice DataGrid (maybe an improvement of the one in the incubator which works nice). -Improve change-compile-refresh development experience (like Brad Leupen said) -Support (plugin) for an IDE other than eclipse (Netbeans, Idea) would be nice. GWT 2.0 rocks. Keep up the good work. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 for Databinding Validation +1 for real DataGrid (sorting, paging, filtering, async...) +1 for nicer widgets On 17 Gru, 12:06, Miguel Ping miguel.p...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for Databinding Validation +1 for a nice DataGrid +1 for nicer widgets On Dec 17, 10:09 am, Matteo matteo.fiande...@gmail.com wrote: +1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http... And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Hello, I'll make a single wish : definitely an enterprise-level datagrid (sorting, paging, filtering and so on). Congrats and Thanks Jérôme -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
My letter to Santa Claus ;) 1. A real DataGrid (maybe integrate ScrollTable from gwt-incubator) 2. DataBinding Validation 3. UiBinder Eclipse plugin 4. Integrate more widgets from gwt-incubator (Spinner, Sliderbar, Glasspanel, CollapsiblePanel, Canvas, etc.) and others (gwt-dnd) 5. Improve animation effects (fade, slide, etc.) 6. Provide a MVP framework Rudy On Dec 17, 11:09 am, Matteo matteo.fiande...@gmail.com wrote: +1 DataBinding Validation Matteo On 17 dic, 02:47, Isaac Truett itru...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like to see SuggestBox get a little love. For example: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=2311http... And one of those issues links to this thread where I had some other thoughts on SuggestBox improvements: http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors/browse... And if I could include a wish for future GPE development it would be wizards, automated refactorings, and reusable code templates. Things like: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3914 I already have at least one SuggestBox patch floating around out there. I'd be happy to update that and work on other SuggestBox features, too, in my spare time. If somebody with commit privs cares to buddy up for design and review, please feel free to contact me on or off list. :) Oh, and woohoo GWT 2.0! Go team! - Isaac On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
Would love to see out of the box distributed compilation. We're supporting 8 languages which bumped our compilation time to more than 45 min for the whole project... On Dec 16, 9:01 am, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
i think GWT must provide css api for generate the css from java code because java code is more manageable than css (usage tracking or refactoring) in my idea, GWT generate css on compile, not set on runtime. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
I would love to see things to stabilize more than adding new features. 1) Improving the overall development experience. - Faster compiler - Faster DevMode 2) Improving tutorials and documentations, perhaps come up with a bit of best practices. - More articles about testing, how to automate tests - A cookbook website 3) More tooling supports - Instrumentation API? - Logger/logging - NetBeans plugins Data Binder and Validation are nice to have but not important. Some people choose to make the widget as dumb as possible: no binder, no validation. All validations happened in either Presenter or Model Presenter if you're using MVP. Ed On Dec 16, 9:01 am, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
My wish list: More focus on making it easier to build powerful and more elegant interfaces quickly... 1. Visually improved/Less Complex DataGrid (PagingScrollTable) 2. Improved support for animations 3. More/Improved Widgets (integrated from Incubator or elsewhere) The grid issue is huge, and is getting a lot of feedback here. Key parts of so many applications are based around some sort of data- connected grid, and Incubator's PagingScrollTable is something of a beast to get working exactly the way you want. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 DataGrid On Dec 16, 12:01 pm, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
GWT is already really really fast for end users but speed of development could use some work. I don't know how but speed of development needs to be improved, specifically dev mode times. On Dec 16, 10:01 am, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
- Another vote for data binding + validation - Rich datagrid component, similar to the PagingScrollTable in the incubator - Inbuilt support for server push (comet) - We should be able to exclude methods from GWT compilation using an annotation (e.g.: @GwtIncompatible). This would make it easier to share classes between the server side and the client side. Right now, if we want to add a method that uses classes which are not GWT- compatible, it has to be put into a separate class, even if the method is only ever called by server side code. - Get an early start on Java 7 support (i know it is a moving target, especially the closures part, but there was a long wait for Java 5 support in GWT 1.5, and it would be nice if there was a much shorter wait for Java 7 support) On Dec 16, 10:01 am, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:42 AM, tfreitas tfrei...@gmail.com wrote: What about roadmap? -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
What do folks here think is important? +1 for faster DevMode startup. I don't understand why it recompiles all Java classes again and again, when Eclipse already has classes in output folder. Plus performing JSNI code parsing and applying ASM converters Would be great to cache all these things on disk and start... hm... 10 times faster. ;-) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Re: [gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
A lot of people are asking for a faster DevMode, is that because you are closing DevMode after every change? You don't have to do that, you can leave DevMode running for the entire day and just refresh the browser itself (while coding in whichever IDE you wish, as long as it's compiling the classes into the correct directory). If you make server side changes, you can just click the Restart Server button under the Jetty tab. Furthermore, GWT 2.0 adds the -draftCompile flag which, according to the GWT Blog http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/2009/12/introducing-google-web-toolkit-20-now.html If you do need to compile to JavaScript often — though hopefully development mode will dramatically reduce your need to do so — you can use the GWT compiler's new -draftCompile flag, which speeds up compiles by skipping optimizations. To be clear, you definitely shouldn't deploy JavaScript compiled that way, but it can be a time saver during non-production continuous builds. -draftCompile in addition to restrictions to the user agent you compile to (if you can afford to do that during development), should make your compiles a lot faster. Hope that helps! All the best, -- Arthur Kalmenson On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Konstantin.Scheglov konstantin.scheg...@gmail.com wrote: What do folks here think is important? +1 for faster DevMode startup. I don't understand why it recompiles all Java classes again and again, when Eclipse already has classes in output folder. Plus performing JSNI code parsing and applying ASM converters Would be great to cache all these things on disk and start... hm... 10 times faster. ;-) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
+1 Databinding -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
- Junit 4 support would be one great addition, as writing JUnit 3 tests is really a pain - the fake DOM structures that one of the GWT talks at Google IO talks about would be great as well (for the purposes of testing) - removing all the deprecated classes from the trunk (DevMode still warns about lots of them, and my understanding was that all of the deprecated classes would be removed in the 2.0 release) - one more thing (and this is a big one): make the compile process parallel; I'm not sure if this is at all possible, but I cannot think why not, at least to a certain degree. It seems that each new GWT release is adding more compiler optimizations, which is great, but all of these build up and the compile time increases. Making this parallel would probably be the single best improvement of GWT. - that's it for now, I'm sure the addition of closures to Java 7 makes possible a host of other compiler optimizations and changes for the better, so that will be great to see happening (when using Java 7 of course) Thanks for the great work on the 2.0 release. -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
On 16 déc, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? - remove listeners (wasn't this targeted to 2.0 ?) - port all widgets to c.g.g.dom.client.Element and deprecate both c.g.g.user.client.Element and c.g.g.user.client.DOM (eventually enhancing c.g.g.d.c.Element with, e.g. insertChild(Element,int)) - further optimize code, both what the compiler produces (I'm told this is being worked on while we talk) and the client code (widgets and JRE) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
1) Improve change-compile-refresh development experience. This, IMO, is GWT's one and only pain point and its a big one. DevMode refresh, while much improved, still is like watching paint dry compared to other web development platforms. Something like an incremental, non- optimized web mode compile, synced with eclipse compiles, would be friggin amazing. Distant 2nd) Formalize data binding Brad -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
[gwt-contrib] Re: now.. afetr GWT 2.0?
On 16 déc, 21:06, Thomas Broyer t.bro...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 déc, 18:01, Bruce Johnson br...@google.com wrote: Working on a draft one. What do folks here think is important? - remove listeners (wasn't this targeted to 2.0 ?) - port all widgets to c.g.g.dom.client.Element and deprecate both c.g.g.user.client.Element and c.g.g.user.client.DOM (eventually enhancing c.g.g.d.c.Element with, e.g. insertChild(Element,int)) - further optimize code, both what the compiler produces (I'm told this is being worked on while we talk) and the client code (widgets and JRE) Hmm, I'd add (with high priority) further rework and improvements of events: - to make it easier/possible to add support for other DOM events in third-party libs (see issue 2562, focusIn/focusOut would be cool too, see issue 1431), by moving the sinking into the DomEvent itself (at least decoupling it from the bit-mask used in Widget::sinkEvents) - to finally have a *good* handling of keyboard/text input events (already improved in 1.6, many nits left, see suggestions given on the issue tracker) - to eventually allow adding handlers in capture mode (you know, the last parameter in W3C DOM's addEventListener) -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
