I guess he is going through the same steps like most devs who relied on GWT. I recognise the same reactions I initially had. We also have huge applications build on GWT and we don't like rewriting hings that work. But sometimes it is a good moment to reflect on the choices that were made. With Java 8 support in place I have the tendency to do things different anyway.
After working iwth JsInterrop and Elemental2 (and the ability to quickly interface with other js based widgets) I noticed that my code is much smaller and maintainable. Right now I still depend on UiBinder and CellWidgets, but I plan to move too Elemento2 and possibly vaadin grid instead or bootstrap datatable. Superdevmode is also fine in most cases. Sure sometimes it is a fight to put a breakpoint in the right location, but with pretty mode the mapping between js and java is very readable. Now I just need a replacement for GWTP with annotation processors. If needed I would even like to help out in getting it done. On Mon, 22 May 2017 at 14:32, Paul Stockley <[email protected]> wrote: > You are putting words in my mouth. Try reading my comment again. All I > said was the approach we took was a lot faster and resulted in smaller code > size, both of which are true. I said it came with some compromise, which > for our use case and I suspect many others isn't a big deal. However, it > also comes with other benefits. For example, we can easily communicate with > non-java backends and services using the same JSON based approach. > > It sounds like your use case isn't applicable to this approach. Google > have made it pretty clear they don't want to use or support GWT RPC > anymore. To be honest they are totally in their right to do this. This is > one of the most one sided open source projects I have seen. Virtually all > the work has been done by google over the years. Over the last few years > all I have seen is people complain that their use cases (RPC, UiBinder, > etc) are being abandoned. Now is the time to step up as a community and > actually start contributing back. Our company relies on base widgets, > UiBinder and Resources. If google doesn't offer these going forward, we > will help to come up with alternatives that will work with J2CL. > > I would suggest you gather up support from everyone who still wants RPC > and start planning to build an alternative. It sounds like you have lots of > ideas how to make a better version. Talk is cheap, why not make something > happen. > > > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 9:03:55 AM UTC-4, Learner Evermore wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 7:04:19 AM UTC-4, Paul Stockley wrote: >>> >>> I am really interested to hear how you can make a version of GWT RPC as >>> fast as a pure JSON approach. We take a tree of thousands of objects and >>> just use one JSON.parse / JSON.stringify call to deserialize / serialize >>> which happens within the browser in C++ code. No other processing is >>> required. We use Overlay types to access the data and that is it. In the >>> future we will switch to JsInteop types instead of overlays, that way we >>> only have one version of our DTO's that are used on the client / server. >>> >> >> As I suspected, you are comparing apples to oranges... >> >> >> 1. You made dumb DTOs for this which means that you have to have the >> code that copies data into them specifically for this purpose. And while >> DTOs have followers for some cases they are *downright antipatterns* in >> other cases. But we don't need to discuss that. >> 2. You either don't have/use polymorphism or have had to code around >> that as well. >> 3. Any logic you have has to be either outside of the overlay types >> or not polymorphic and you need to deal with that too. >> 4. You also probably excluded the cost of delayed type conversion. >> 5. How are you communicating long/Long? There are other examples. >> 6. You can't include data of a third party library unless you have >> the means to make full copies of it and keep in sync with that. >> 7. Enjoy communicating cyclic graphs? >> >> >> Then we come to the point of how much work you spend addressing the >> above, esp. for complex types. We don't have to spend any of that. None. >> Zilch. Nada. We have spent that time ensuring that we *never* have to >> send so many objects even if we have to show millions (literally) and made >> our product better overall. >> >> -- > 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/81724bf2-552d-4461-9f92-b6fc388f4840%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/81724bf2-552d-4461-9f92-b6fc388f4840%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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/CABrJHW2CiNe25M8mpZEj8ibP4axqb-wtmPi%3D330ZjTJbN3M%3DWA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
