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 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 large scale, powerful web applications which can do more than just entering forms or clicking checkboxes. I am impressed with GWT after downloading and playing with it, but I think that Tapestry has a whole lot more to offer than just the ability to do Java-to- Javascript UI. AJAX is an overworked buzzword. The key point is that you can design pages which don't need a whole page refresh to update some of the displayed data. The 'cool' UI stuff can be useful, but is not essential in the design of an engaging and powerful application (web or desktop.) Interestingly UI designers of desktop apps are tending to 'webify' them to give them the semantics of a web page, so it seems ironic that web UI designers are so keen to go the other way! In summary, GWT is interesting and will be useful. Tapestry is useful for more than just its UI components especially when combined with Hivemind. I don't see GWT either being the death knell for Tapestry OR Tacos. I look forward to examples of integrating Tapestry and GWT and if I find that I need to do one myself I'll report on my results to this list, as I hope others will too. Alan Chaney Konstantin Ignatyev wrote: > >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 less an IDE. Please point me at just one robust and convenient text editing component: they are not a match to 'desktop' .ones. > > > The whole idea of overhauling html with javascript and other types of augmentation technologies does not seem to be conceptually correct. From the conceptual point of view it all looks like XWindow reinvention with the help of ducktape and gluegun. > > > IMO the whole buzz around GWT validates Swing framework as solid basis for building certain types of UI. Ant therefore rather than compile it to Javascript or whatever within a browser it would make much more sense to let Swing components to work within browsers. > > > And what is interesting is that all the technologies are here in place ant they need just slight adjustments: > - Browser Components were invented long time ago and they are called: Applets. All we need is to make Java Web Start technology to work with them well; > - JavaWebStart, JNLP actually needs to be altered a bit to allow using a shared repository of components per developers choice. The ability is present now but the feature is artificially limited to the same source domain and does not allow multiple signatures on components; > - And Java RT should be made modular and become a must have for the clients, which is going to be easy enough since Sun is going to opensource it; > > I think that this set of technologies if far superior to anything else we have in the space: Flash, Ajax, and current JWS applications. Yes the technologies are 'old' and have some stigma attached but we need to overcome it in order to have some meaningful progress rather than be obsessed with 'new' stuff that on many occasions is just reinvent the wheel, but makes it square or octahedral (I guess it improves traction.). > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
