Andreas, Thanks. That's all I needed to know.
-Original Message-
From: andre...@gmail.com [mailto:andre...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andreas
Andreou
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:39 PM
To: Tapestry users
Subject: Re: Google Web Toolkit Version 1.7.0
AFAIK, the credits to Tapestr
> Eclipse PlugIn none of Tapestry's artifacts are provided.
>
> Is anyone know about GWT provided with the Google App Engine plugin?
> What component of Tapestry is provided?
>
> I would definitely use Tapestry if provided with Google App Engine.
>
> Thanks,
> Brice
>
>
Google App Engine.
Thanks,
Brice
-------
Google Web Toolkit
Version 1.7.0
(Subversion 1...@5705)
Copyright (c) 2009 Google Inc. All rights reserved. All other product,
service names, brands, or trademarks, are the property of their
respect
Tapestry has a big advantage over GWT, the easy separation of the html and
all the other stuff. GWT is a little more tricky on that, it's like swing,
you are defining your GUI by code (java code) and it's a step back on web
GUIs. It's harder for a web designer to touch the GWT code, the tap code i
So news on the Tapestry/GWT front ? I would love to hear what's coming !
Thanks in advance !
On 5/24/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I got capture working
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_frm/thread/3e4954b5cc5f3492/8197b5a553276701#8197b
I got capture working
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit/browse_frm/thread/3e4954b5cc5f3492/8197b5a553276701#8197b5a553276701
this is what I believe to be the first step to integrating GWT widgets
into Tapestry forms.
Now... back to Spindle 4T4!
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman
I was able to create, for example, a derivative of the GWT TextBox
(textfield) that, instead of creating one, captires one already on the
page effectively making it a GWT widget. But the event hookup is
incomplete so far.
Have not figured out yet how useful that is but I could see that kind
of wi
Until it gets more mature let's concentrate on Tapestry
Maturity is often pushed by the early adopters. Otherwise things tend
to get abandoned. Would Tap4 be as good as it is if no one used it
until it came out of beta?
On 5/23/06, Norbert Sándor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GWT is really a cool
GWT is really a cool technology but it is far not mature enough to be
used for real applications. For example it only supports ASCII Java
files, has private project management (SVN, bug tracker), etc.
Until it gets more mature let's concentrate on Tapestry :)
Regards,
Norbi
Steven Bell wrote:
Geoff! Please drop a hint on how you think GWT could be integrated with tap.
Cheers,
PS
On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the input Geoff,
I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to
code
anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pi
Thanks for the input Geoff,
I've been mostly perusing the example apps, and haven't had a chance to code
anything up myself. I'm glad to hear it can be pieced in, but I'm not clear
on how that works.
If there was just one more day in the week, and I could have it all to
myself. :)
Like I said
4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation of concerns between UI design
and webapp development.
In its current form yes, and no. The widgetry created in code - yes.
Where individual chunks of widgetry are located on a page - no. A page
can be all GWT or just a few bits of it quite easily. An
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven Bell wrote:
> Like I said I have only had a quick look at it so some of my impressions my
> be off base. I can see cases where this would be the greatest thing since
> sliced bread, and others where it would be a nightmare to work with.
Soun
Heh... Couldn't have put it better. Very well spoken Steven.
On 5/23/06, Steven Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't had the chance to really play with GWT as much as I would like
yet, but my first impression is this:
1. Very cool technology.
2. Interesting concept.
3. Nice to have all
I haven't had the chance to really play with GWT as much as I would like
yet, but my first impression is this:
1. Very cool technology.
2. Interesting concept.
3. Nice to have all the IDE support for developing an interactive AJAX
website.
but...
4. It doesn't lend itself to the separation
I do not miss Flash even a bit and do not want to spend any time on configuring
that. If site requires flash then they do not have my business.
I mention this problem only to show situation where Flash is not that easy to
install.
Alex Kartashev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yeah... I think you ca
Yeah... I think you can install 32-bit version of flash and it would
work Or you may need to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. I
remember I had this problem on Fedora Core 4 on AMD64 kernel. Yes... you
need the Firefox version from 32-bit distro.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Agre
Agreed. Easines of getting JVM is the key. Win comes without Flash but it is
easy and relatively fast to install it.
The problem should be solved: JVM should be easy to install, easier than Flash
(whish does not work at all on my 64bit Gentoo- not that I miss it).
Sergei Dubov <[EMAIL PROT
Interesting... How can an applet be a viable alternative if it needs a
JVM to run, and Windoz comes without it. I think this problem needs to
be solved first if applets/JWS are to come back into fashion.
-Serge
Konstantin Ignatyev wrote:
Paul Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Horrible, horr
Hi Geoff,
Reading your comments on GWT, it seems you've found another darling. Not bad
though, as long as you strive to distribute your love evenly between them
;-)
Regards,
Francis
On 5/23/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Go try it out and then comment.
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Alex K
Go try it out and then comment.
Geoff
On 5/23/06, Alex Kartashev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Cantrell wrote:
> I completely agree with about 90% of what Todd writes. This is
> definitely not a flash in the pan, and the idea of using an
> intermediate language (Java, in this case) that comp
Paul Cantrell wrote:
I completely agree with about 90% of what Todd writes. This is
definitely not a flash in the pan, and the idea of using an
intermediate language (Java, in this case) that compiles to client-
side code is a brilliant and revolutionary one.
Revolutionary? All that the f
> Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout I loathe it. What an awful
> mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout
>
> I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
> "Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
>
> But applets don't integrate
Wait till someone announces "GWT on Rails".. yikes!
Yes. Then we will indeed have found the holy GRail itself...
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I used to be a proponent of Applets but there are so many known
problems (just read the preceding messages) and so little done about
it for so long that I have given up on them. Maybe some day all the
issue will be fixed - don't hold your breath.
Flash.. yuck. The idea is nice the authoring tools
Paul Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout
I loathe it. What an awful
mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout
Couple of wrapper functions to constraints make it very easy to use, not to
mention that it is very easy to arrange co
Horrible, horrible, GridBagLayout I loathe it. What an awful
mess. CSS is so many thousands of times nicer for doing layout
I am sympathetic to the "applets not Javascript" argument, though.
"Applets with CSS layout" would be especially nice.
But applets don't integrate well with th
Applets is what we really need :).
Applets are evil. Even flash is a more compelling client side platform
than applets. I've never seen an applet that didn't make me want to
vomit. XUL is better in many respects to both Flash and Applets thanks
to a clean declarative model, but has the lowest po
JavaScript is the new Applet, I think.
Actually javaScript might well become the new J2EE. Consider phobos and all
those agile message passing js frameworks collapsing the programming
distinction between client and server.
I'm not sure I'm all for it, but I'm completely floored by the general id
http://www.swixml.org/
http://www.java2s.com/Product/Swing/LookAndFeel.htm
And Swing can support any kind of layout managers but I have found
GridBagLayout to be very flexible and good for nearly everything I do with
Swing.
Therefore I think it does not make sense to try (re)creating Swing in b
+1.0E6
Cheers,
PS
On 5/21/06, Mário Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
> on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
Hey.. can't wait to put my hands on that :-)!
Keep up the good work!
-- Már
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
Hey.. can't wait to put my hands on that :-)!
Keep up the good work!
-- Mário
Geoff
On 5/20/06, Mário Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems real
There is no need to build desktop-like interfaces pixel by pixel. Just
think about Echo's HtmlPanel, it's very similar to Tapestry's templating
mechanism.
The good thing in GWT is to use the efficient development style of Swing
(I mean Java only, easy to debug/test) but allow to use the underlyi
I will be posting the code. Probably on Monday. Right now I'm working
on Spindle 4T4 ;-)
Geoff
On 5/20/06, Mário Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems really cool Geoff.
Could you post the source code to take a look?
-- Mário
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I has some
Seems really cool Geoff.
Could you post the source code to take a look?
-- Mário
On 5/21/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
here's a movie of it...
http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
Geoff
I has some luck with GWT last night duplicating the Tacos autocompleter.
here's a movie of it...
http://spindle.sourceforge.net/AutoCompleterDemo.htm
Geoff
On 5/19/06, Geoff Longman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
frameworks in java
I completely agree with about 90% of what Todd writes. This is
definitely not a flash in the pan, and the idea of using an
intermediate language (Java, in this case) that compiles to client-
side code is a brilliant and revolutionary one.
Finally, there was nothing wrong with the original MV
This isn't really a Tapestry vs GWT thing. This is the latest
(greatest?) push to remove the application-web disconnect. If this
means that other frameworks are rendered less effective by comparison,
then so be it. This is evolution at work.
Some posts seem to indicate that this is just some flas
Yes, the big thing is the ability of easy debugging of clientside code.
As I wrote before, Tapestry4 offers much more than the current gwt
release. Anyone can see it by downloading the package or checing the
developer forums. (Of course it is only an initial, beta release.)
But Tapestry should b
Also, the viability of GWT is maybe related not to whether it adheres to or
refers to any specific framework but whether it kills development time and
can be integrated.
Cheers,
PS
On 5/20/06, Alan Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with both Konstantin and Paul Contrell on this one. My
I agree with both Konstantin and Paul Contrell on this one. My
experience as a developer has been with both desktop applications
(especially in the consumer space) and web applications (especially in
PHP). I have been going through the learning curve of Tapestry because
it offers scope to build
>I prefer the average webapp's UI to the average
> desktop (well, Windows) or Swing UI.
First of all let me state the obvious: there are different types of
applications and they have different requirements.
I yet to see a convenient web based text editor or accounting application, much
le
Good point. But I I assumed that it would be possible to subvert GWT widgets
to tapestry wrappings, or maybe the other side around, since they want to
bind to something id'd in the page. That way we could use any GWT widgte
just the way we could a Tacos component.
Having said that I must take of
For people writing single-page Ajaxy apps that look like Swing, GWT
may well be the death knell for other frameworks. For other types of
apps, I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the former type of
app is something I want to see more of.
I don't necessarily like the trend toward the s
Or maybe this is an excellent opportunity for T5-developers to look at
the good stuff in existing technology and do it better. :>
2006/5/20, Todd Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more
The more I use the GWT, the more impressed I am. This could be the
killer framework java has needed. The ease of use and more traditional
GUI programming model approach plus the power of the resulting
components is a real winner. It will be interesting to see what T5 has
in store, but I've yet to
Maybe on second thoughtSince I've already gone through all the trouble
of making sure and confirming how they've done it I'll just make sure it
gets into tap5 instead.(i've been working with Rhino a lot lately developing
various js tools) It's not very hard to compile java classes into javascr
It's definitely some very cool technology, as much as I hate to admit it
I downloaded and took apart as much as I could when it came out, very clever
stuff! They've basically created a sort of browser equivalent to java. Not
literally, and not on their own of course. Rhino has been around for
Very sweet. If this had existed a few years ago the number of web
frameworks in java would be much less than it is today.
I finally got it running yesterday (my fault - no free time) and
lickety split I had converted some simple Tapestry stuff we have a
work here. Nothing complete mind you but fo
Todd Orr wrote:
Many have made the claim, but this may actually be the best thing
since sliced bread. I think the compiler is under the apache license
(http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/download.html). It seems (I'm no
lawyer) that the apps you create are free for commercial,
non-commercial, etc.
OK, I have tweaked a bit with it. It seems doable to wrap existing Tacos
components so that they could be used, kind-of-live in eclipse. Remember
that I do not at all know what I am talking about, but it seems fairly easy
to add new stuff.
Their basic example shows how to do RPC over JSON to ano
Many have made the claim, but this may actually be the best thing
since sliced bread. I think the compiler is under the apache license
(http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/download.html). It seems (I'm no
lawyer) that the apps you create are free for commercial,
non-commercial, etc. use.
On 5/17/06
License can be found:
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/terms.html
I believe the Google guys said in the JavaOne presentation that the
toolkit was Apache 2.0 license open source. Some of the supporting
utilities may not be open source, but, the toolkit is and the download
comes complete with s
It looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how this could be integrated with the
work being done on Tacos4 and/or Tapestry 4.1.
Having said that, I think the licence is, like Java, free but not open source.
-Scott
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 22:37, Peter Svensson wrote:
> OK, this is so sweet. Who wil
It looks pretty cool. I'd like to see how this could be integrated with the
work being done on Tacos4 and/or Tapestry 4.1.
Having said that, I think the licence is, like Java, free but not open
source.
-Scott
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 22:37, Peter Svensson wrote:
> OK, this is so sweet. Who will
It feels like "the missing link in Tacos", since with this they could
actually make it easy for people to both use it and get going as well as
contribute.
I think .. :) (Gotta try this out atm)
Cheers,
PS
On 5/17/06, Chris Chiappone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yeah this is pretty cool, even co
Yeah this is pretty cool, even comes with the ability to create a .project
file to go directly into eclipse. This would be nice to see in
Tacos/Tapestry.
On 5/17/06, Peter Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
Tapestry/Tacos??
h
OK, this is so sweet. Who will be the first to make this work with
Tapestry/Tacos??
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/
Cheers,
PS
58 matches
Mail list logo
