On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > wrote:
> Two obvious options which would let us keep Javascript support: > > 1. Use Wicket. This generates all the HTML on the server side, and gives > low level access to it. It therefore provides fallback very cleanly (it is > not suitable if latency between server and client is high or you need to do > a lot of processing on the client). It requires the designers to create > HTML, but it can assemble it in a clean templating way that doesn't mix code > with HTML. > I've got quite a bit of experience with Wicket, and while its a great framework, I estimate that achieving the same results with Wicket that you can get with GWT would probably require at least twice the development effort. Wicket is rather verbose. 2. Generate HTML in fproxy (eventually using some other template framework > or whatever, but right now we don't need to change it), and use low-level > GWT code (similar to that used in web-pushing) to animate it. > > This is definitely easier if we are *not* going to rewrite everything. And > IMHO rewriting everything is unlikely to be necessary for a completely new > look and feel. > So we invest further in our home-grown web framework that violates almost every rule of a good web framework, such as mixing code with design, and many other things. I think that is just going further down the wrong road, and investing more in code that will need to be torn out and replaced sooner or later if the project survives that long. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: ian at sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101018/58e90c20/attachment.html>
