Absolutely, 1) The gwt-validation project does not rely on the user doing anything in order to mark classes as validatable or validators/constraints as usable. No factories or etc. It instead uses a library to scan for constrained classes. 2) Freemarker is used for creating templates of the generated code. This is much easier than inline code generation. I believe though, to get it to work, some unintended things were done to the gwtc process. 3) i18n does NOT depend on the GWT mechanism and instead depends on Java so that it works the same way in Java and JavaScript. This is mainly a "where do I put the properties files" thing.
Those are the ones that come to me right now. There are probably others. Like the misguided belief that I had of using a singleton pattern for a lot of stuff to save space on the JavaScript side that has turned that into a bit of a hairball that needs to be unraveled. (Singletons upon singletons.) The whole thing needs critical eyes other than mine. We also need a way to bolt up the generated/client side to the JSR-303 compatibility checker. (It uses TestNG.) Then there's all the code style stuff. Luckily, as of quite a few versions ago, gwt-validation was switched to the Apache Software License 2.0 so at least that's in order. I'm *more* than willing to work on this, whatever it takes. That was the goal from day one. (http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=343#c32) A lot of things have changed since then and the JSR-303 is only one of them. Let me know if you have any other questions. Chris On Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:15:07 PM UTC-4, Ray Cromwell wrote: > > Can you summarize the implementation differences? > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Chris Ruffalo wrote: > > We've been over this before, I think, and several problems have gotten in > > the way. It's not that we don't want to cooperate, we do, but I think > that > > it's too divergent from the way that GWT works and wants things to work. > > > > I also know it doesn't really conform to GWT's code style. > > > > The goal, initially, was for gwt-validation to be included in gwt as the > > default. I don't know that GWT needs it's own fully-compliant JSR-303 > > framework. Plus gwt-validation is only around 55% compliant anyway at > r328. > > > > But know that the gwt-validation project leadership (i.e. me) has no > problem > > with this. > > > > v/r > > > > Chris Ruffalo, gwt-validation project lead > > > > > > On Saturday, April 7, 2012 2:21:51 AM UTC-4, Gilberto Pacheco Gallegos > > wrote: > >> > >> There is another project that seems to be more advanced than current > >> status: http://code.google.com/p/gwt-validation/ ¿Is there a chance to > >> include it's work? > > > > -- > > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
