> I would use the independence of GWT to let you choose a backend that > supports your experience. If server side development with Java is as > slow as client side development with GWT, I would suggest that there > are better alternatives for the server side.
Development in GWT is only as slow as the developer doing it. If you're having trouble developing a GWT client then no, a Java server solution probably isn't right for you either. On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Jim Freeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My comments are inline below. Please pardon me if they > are not popular to the Java perspective. > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM, gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As Ian states, you can use whatever you like back end. >> >> Django is a popular framework, but perhaps you should consider using >> either Django or GWT+Java since in mixing the two maybe you loose >> quite a lot. >> >> 1) Being able to debug the entire application (GUI + server) from your >> favourite IDE is a very big plus - you loose that if you use Django >> back end > > My favorite IDE is certainly not eclipse, and probably not the best to use > with Django. The server side can be quickly written and tested independent > of the client side. I consider that a plus. > >> 2) GWT RPC is very fast and efficient, a big plus for GWT. You would >> need to use,say, JSON if you had a Django back end which means you >> will have to write your own JSON serialization stuff, something GWT >> RPC does for you. > > JSON can be made as fast and json libraries for python already exist. > So, I seriously doubt anyone is writing JSON serialization from scratch. > Your server side code probably only needs to be modified with > self.data.to_json. > >> 3) For each object passed between client and server, you will need to >> maintain two copies, one for Django and one in Java for GWT client. > > Using a restful approach, you don't pass objects between client and server. > The stateless server serves up requests for data. No need to complicate > the issue. > >> 4) AFAIK much of the appeal of Django (apart from its persistence >> mechanism) lies in how it binds persistent objects and other artifacts >> to UI widgets for you - you could not take advantage of this with a >> GWT UI > > Django provides a good ORM and an MVC framework. With it, about > the only thing you will need to account for is that you support json > format requests. > >> I guess if you are a Django expert and can crank out server code PDQ >> with it, there is case for mixing it with GWT, but otherwise I would >> choose one or the other. > > I would use the independence of GWT to let you choose a backend that > supports your experience. If server side development with Java is as > slow as client side development with GWT, I would suggest that there > are better alternatives for the server side. > > Jim > >> >> regards >> gregor >> >> >> >> On Sep 15, 4:59 pm, "Jim Freeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 7:38 AM, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > I am trying to evaluate some options for a project that has just >>> > started (but is only in the planning stages atm) and it seems that >>> > most of the complexity will be in the front end (in JavaScript), so >>> > the back end doesn't seem to matter that much anymore as it will be >>> > fairly small and be acting primarily as an interface with the >>> > database. Currently the back end is planned in Django, but could be >>> > switched to Java. >>> >>> I use merb (similar to Ruby on Rails) and Sequel as my ORM for the server. >>> I wrote a simple RESTful RequestBuilder and some very straightforward >>> JSON layer for my models on the client side. >>> >>> My time, allocated between client and server, it 99:1. GUI's (and Java) >>> are not the most succinct programming environments. I think I am coding >>> about 1K LoC on the client for about 10 LoC on the server. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> > The question really is whether anyone has had experience with using >>> > another language in the server side while using GWT (and hence Java) >>> > on the client side code. If so, was it more painful that it would >>> > have been simply using Java for the entire application, or didn't it >>> > make much of a difference? >>> >>> > Regards, >>> >>> > John >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Freeze >> > >> > > > > -- > Jim Freeze > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
