It's not just the documentation. The only release we have is a Beta release from 2008 and there hasn't been any activity on the project since 2009. For all we know, Google isn't using or advancing this technology. There certainly isn't a large and thriving community around it. Google could at any moment decide to abandon it (if they haven't already). It just seems risky.
I know the general reaction to everything is to resist change, but on the other hand if we didn't have a template system in place and we were doing an evaluation of GXP and other template engines, I doubt that without an insiders view in to Google, we would use GXP, based on the perceived lack of support and activity. ~Michael On May 17, 2011, at 1:43 AM, Yuri Z wrote: > I think that if GXP is good enough for Google, it is also good enough for > us. Regarding lack of public documentation - maybe we just need to try and > ask Google to open some more of it. After all we have some "google > connections" in this project. > > 2011/5/17 Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> > >> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Lennard de Rijk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I also think it is something that was chosen because it was a Google >>> project. However the amount of templates should still be pretty limited >> (7?) >>> and we might want to switch over to something more publicly documented? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Lennard >> >> Last I checked (a few months ago), most of the documentation for GXPs >> is sitting on google's intranet. I think if google isn't going to >> opensource the GXP documentation, it doesn't make sense for wiab to >> use it. >> >> The principle of least surprise suggests we ditch GXP for something >> more standard. >> >> -J >>
