On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 9:37:58 PM UTC+2, Relja Pcela wrote:
>
> It would be really nice to see some new answers on this kind of questions
> from GWT contributors other than: "We don't know how GWT3 will look like in
> this moment but we know that J2CL will not include this and that" because
> this sentence is almost 2 years old.
>
We don't really know how GWT 3 will look like, but we know we'll base it
upon j2cl, which means no JSNI and GWT.create() magic (no generators, no
deferred-binding configuration in XML files).
We've said repeatedly that we were waiting to actually being able to start
*playing* with j2cl to have a better understanding of what would be
possible or impossible, what would need to be done, etc.
We want to start prototyping things.
And only then we'll be able to form a better image of what GWT 3 could look
like.
Incidentally, you've had 2 years to start planning for it:
- remove as much JSNI as possible, leaving mostly one-liners that could
then easily be replaced with JsInterop (and now that JsInterop is here with
a beta of Elemental 2, that last migration can be started too)
- replace <replace-with> in gwt.xml with System.getProperty("…") and a
switch…case (or if/else for more complex cases); this is relatively
straightforward and can possibly even be (partially) automated (first step:
generate, from the XML, a proxy class whose constructor does the switch on
implementation, and replace the <replace-with> rules with a single one
using the proxy class; second step: generate a static factory with that
same switch code, and use it instead of the GWT.create())
- replace generators with annotation processors (first step: have the
processor generate a *.gwt.xml file with <replace-with> rules; second step:
rpelace the GWT.create() calls) or preprocessors (or a combination of both).
GWT-RPC *is* problematic, but not insurmountable. People (me included)
question whether this is a good idea though, but others disagree.
We haven't seen the community engaging much in any discussion trying to
move things forward though: if I tell you GWT-RPC won't be the same, can
you tell me how you'd like it to be? (a preprocessor? a whitelist of
classes in annotations on the RemoteService interfaces? what if it
generated server-side code too instead of the serialization policy files?)
Fortunately, there have been people trying new things though (autorest for
example).
UiBinder and ClientBundle have their issues, too; but maybe they need to be
replaced with new tools leveraging the new toolchain, along with automated
migration tools?
Regarding ClientBundle, isn't it now seen as a bad practice (with HTTP/2)
to bundle assets inside the JS code?
--
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/7ac23bf2-a9ba-4616-b10e-dd245b0adc72%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
