JFormDesigner + JGoodies are my friends. Very good looking GUIs(their lookandfeel), data binding and validation is very nicely implemented. REALLY worth a look if you want to develop serious data driven applications with complex user interfaces.
btw, we moved from Swing to GWT(was a big mistake, we spent alot of time on this) and back to Swing, but with JGoodies+JFormDesigner as our friends. I am not saying GWT is a bad choice for UI toolkit, just not for me. I do not want to fight with CSS(fontsizes, alignment), javascript, wierd panel behaviour, ever... Robert PS: I run KDE. On 6/20/07, McFinnigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't used any of the other toolkits, but I found that once I had a > reasonable amount of experience with Swing it was really quick to get > complex GUIs up and running. From what I remember of fighting with Qt at > one point, Swing hangs together quite nicely. > > I find that the major issue I have with Swing GUIs is a) their memory usage > and b) trying to get them to look pretty. > > Jeremy > > > On 6/20/07, Brian Silberbauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ahh! > > > > Now we have flex, javafx, ajax(n) and silverlight all doing similar > > things. I think it will come down to who will have the better > > development environment. > > > > I wonder if silverlight will be able to 'shine' above flex as a > > solution, web designers are pretty entrenched with macromedia > > (dreamweaver et al) and microsoft does not have a good track record > > with designers. > > > > The funny thing about swing is that there is a crossover point in your > > application complexity where it becomes really easy to use. Creating > > complex tables and trees with custom non/editable fields becomes > > clearer when following the 'TAO' of swing's MVC design. > > > > Its also very easy to encapsulate your custom components as DnD > > components (beans) that work with your IDE's visual designer (well, in > > netbeans). I found that ease of use severly lacking in Visual Studio > > with C#, but that was a while ago, that might have caught up now. > > > > I don't have much experience with developing solutions in other GUI > > toolkit on the desktop, I tend to get too frustrated with them. I be > > interested to hear other peoples experiences. > > > > Brian > > > > On 6/20/07, Fritz Meissner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > GWT is fantastic... it offers a strongly-typed language and doesn't > require > > > the client to know anything about installations. It does still carry > with it > > > some of the foibles of JS/XHTML, but much less than doing all the JS > > > yourself. > > > > > > I think, though, that in terms of what this article is talking about, > you > > > might just have pointed out the problem yourself... the "ease" of Swing > > > development? Who else but people who are used to battling Enterprise > Java > > > and expect Web apps to be difficult to write (ie us) would call Swing > easy? > > > It's all relative, of course... > > > > > > Another option that is in the mix is M$'s Silverlight. I was at M$ > Devdays > > > in Somerset West a week or two ago, and it does seem like Microsoft are > on > > > to a good thing. Go to > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlight > > > > > > to find out more, but briefly: Silverlight is a browser-based runtime > that > > > sort of crosses Flash with Applets. Version 2.0 allows you to do > scripting > > > with managed .NET code, and includes things like decent debugging. I > haven't > > > used it, but the guys doing the demos at the conference were putting > > > together some pretty cool stuff. It was interesting to note that they > did > > > all their demos in Firefox, just to prove that they were taking > > > cross-browser compatability seriously. > > > > > > The irony of it is: we have AJAX solutions now, which are mostly a bunch > of > > > hacks thrown together to solve the problems caused by a lack of > > > standardisation. Everyone knows it, and so everyone is working on a > > > solution. In fact, at least three solutions. Separately. So soon we > won't > > > have to choose which browser we use - just which browser plugin runtime. > > > Isn't it wonderful how progress brings clarity and makes everyone's > lives > > > easier? > > > > > > (I realise that users don't have to choose between runtimes, they can > simply > > > download them all. So actually that's not too bad... except possibly > here in > > > SA where bandwidth is at a premium, and downloading that 5MB Silverlight > RE > > > on top of Flash and/or JavaFx is quite an imposition on Internet users). > > > > > > Fritz > > > > > > > > > On 6/19/07, Phillip Kruger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > We need a new language, javascript and xml isn't the answer. > > > > > > > > What about Google Web Toolkit ? > > > > The ease of swing development and the result javascript and HTML .... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 15:16, Brian Silberbauer wrote: > > > > > He does mention flex quite a lot though doesn't he? > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised he did not mention javafx > (http://java.sun.com/javafx/), > > > > > though jre issues still apply. It will be interesting to see if the > > > > > consumer JRE > > > > > > > > > (http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javase/consumerjre/) > > > will > > > > > make a difference, but it is slated for 2008.. > > > > > > > > > > Anybody looked into javafx? > > > > > > > > > > We need a new language, javascript and xml isn't the answer. > > > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > On 6/19/07, Fritz Meissner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Did you see his comments about this issue? He claims in the > article > > > that > > > > > > he started writing it before he signed with them. > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, I think I agree with him about the current AJAX > solutions > > > > > > being built to squeeze the last few drops out of a platform that > was > > > > > > pretty much broken from the start.. whether the solution is Flex > or > > > > > > something else... I don't know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fritz > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/19/07, Mike Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Fritz Meissner wrote: > > > > > > > > Found this article by Bruce Eckel on his view of the future in > > > RIA: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://java.sys-con.com/read/333329.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bruce Eckel is a paid Adobe shill, promoting their "Flex" stuff. > > > > > > > Filter his opinions accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > mike morris :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/ > > > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/blog/planb/ > > > > > > > http://mikro2nd.net/blog/mike/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- A day without chillies is a day wasted ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Brian Silberbauer > > Consultant > > > > +27 (0)83 566 2705 > > skype: brian.silberbauer > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CTJUG Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CTJUG-Forum For the ctjug home page see http://www.ctjug.org.za -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
