Actually we are mostly taking steps in the other direction, so that libraries grow independently from SDK releases; can freely evolve, get better or replaced by the others. We would like the core of the SDK to be 'less opinionated' about how things should be done.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Jamie Cramb <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > We've been using GWT in house for a while now and have recently come > across some great libraries that have made our GWT development much more > productive. For example (and I'm sure others will have more great examples): > > - *RestyGWT* has provided us with a great programming model for > interacting with our RESTful web services with trivial volume of code and > it also gives us automatic re-use of our server-side DTOs. > - *GwtMockito* has made our JUnit JVM testing of our GWT code much > simpler; good testing support is a key cornerstone to the success of a > framework for us (Spring Framework releases over the last few years are > great examples of first-class test support). > > Has the committee looked at approaching popular open source projects that > plug gaps in the GWT framework as a way to achieve inorganic growth for, > and a faster evolution of, the core GWT framework? > > Cheers, > Jamie > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "GWT Contributors" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
