I don't quite understand this point. Any JSO you create is going to be tightly bound to the underlying Gadget/OpenSocial APIs, so what's the difference between a JSO binding which is isn't dependency injected, vs one that is, with regard to keeping up with API changes? Are you arguing against using GWT JSOs to call OpenSocial APIs, or just trying to argue against GadgetLinker injecting the reference for you? There seems to be little difference between writing a native method to get the initial reference to an Overlay type, or having it injected for you, with respect to "fast evolving specs". All the GadgetLinker does is construct an instance of a type that you tell it and it wouldn't be hard to modify it so inject JSO Overlays. To me, the only issue that controls whether or not you can keep in sink is whether you have access to the mapping source. And even then, that isn't the biggest issue with OpenSocial programming. The actual specs 0.6/0.7/0.8/0.81/0.9 etc aren't changing that fast, in fact, I wish they'd change faster.
The real problem with OpenSocial programming, which hits Java programmers just as hard as JavaScript programmers, is poor container implementations, and the fact that the spec is designed in a way that virtually everything is optional to implement. Quick, which containers support notifications, requestShareApp, or activities? Which support OAuth? IMHO, a generator which could parse idiomatic JsDoc/Javascript ala Bob's JS Interop, and with some extra annotations, automatically generate JSO bindings, would actually be superior to writing JSOs by hand to keep them in sink, or even programming Javascript by hand. Why? Because everytime the spec is updated, if there was a mismatch, you could detect errors. However, none of that really matters much, since unless you decide to target a single OS container, probably 90% of the work is workarounds of unsupported or broken features. -Ray On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Alex Epshteyn <alexander.epsht...@gmail.com > wrote: > > The reason GWT works is because HTML and Javascript evolve very > slowly. A tight Java binding to a fast-changing Javascript API like > Gadgets or OpenSocial is asking for trouble because you won't be able > to keep updating the Java code fast enough. > > Alex > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Ray Cromwell <cromwell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I think there are two issues. One is providing hooks to allow the RPC > call > > to be dispatched via a customized mechanism. This can range from > > makeRequest() with POST, to cross-domain JSONP, to ProtocolBuffer > > RpcChannel. I've brought up this issue time and time again, as I've been > an > > early adopter of writing complex GWT apps inside of Gadgets. I think it > > would be useful to revisit the RPC design in the future to make it easier > to > > plugin custom methods, not just for Gadgets/makeRequest, but also for > stuff > > like JSON wireformats and ProtocolBuffers. > > The issue of the GadgetLinker manifest generation is separate. I happen > to > > like the concept, but dislike the current implementation. I like the > > auto-generation of the manifest, the type safety of dependency-injected > > interfaces. However, the current system is too inflexible. It doesn't > > support multiple Gadget views, it doesn't support "optional" feature > > requirements. That is, if you require an optional feature in the > manifest, > > the feature interfaces will still get injected even if they weren't > loaded. > > Simply put, I don't find using annotations, generators, and linkers > scary. > > Code generation is one of the core features of GWT, and nothing new is > being > > added to the Java programming language, as the syntax is part of the Java > > language. > > On a wider now, realistically, GALGWT needs official bindings for > non-legacy > > Gadgets and OpenSocial. I've implemented JSOs for most of those privately > as > > Gadget features, but it would be nice to have an officially sanctioned > > Google binding. > > > > -Ray > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Alex Epshteyn > > <alexander.epsht...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Background: > >> > >> OpenSocial containers provide the method gadget.io.makeRequest because > >> gadget scripts aren't able to use XHR due to the SOP. Furthermore, I > >> believe, OpenSocial containers don't expose the _IG_GetCachedUrl(url) > >> method that the gwt-gadgets library uses. > >> > >> Now, regarding the gwt-gadgets library, to be blunt, it simply scares > >> me. I don't want all the gadget stuff brought into the Java > >> programming language with interfaces and annotations. Having the > >> bootsrap and gadget.xml generated with a custom linker is scary and > >> unnecessary. This is just asking for trouble with a leaky > >> abstraction. > >> > >> The RPC Problem: > >> > >> It's very easy to write a Google Gadget with GWT without using the gwt- > >> gadgets library. Simply write your gadget.xml by hand (there's not > >> much to it, really), write your GWT app the traditional way, compile > >> it with the XS linker, and write a script tag referencing > >> your .nocache.js script in your gadget.xml. You can call all the > >> OpenSocial and Gadgets API methods from your GWT code using JSNI (JSO > >> overlay types could simplify things a bit). > >> > >> The only problem is RPC. Currently using GWT-RPC in an OpenSocial > >> container seems impossible. You'd have to write a JSON service. > >> > >> The Proposed Solution: > >> > >> This is just a rough sketch, but I think this can be accomplished as > >> follows: > >> > >> 1) Subclass RequestBuilder to use gadgets.io.makeRequest > >> > >> 2) Subclass RemoteServiceProxy and override the protected method > >> doPrepareRequestBuilder to return an instance of your custom > >> RequestBuilder subclass. > >> > >> 3) Modify ProxyCreator to allow setting a custom superclass for the > >> generated proxy class. I.e. allow chaning this line: > >> composerFactory.setSuperclass(RemoteServiceProxy.class.getSimpleName > >> ()); > >> > >> (Perhaps with a system property defining the class name for starters). > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
