Ian Bambury wrote: > I'm obviously missing something here... > > I have a requirement to build an Ajax web site. To make the coding > easier, I use GWT so I can write in Java. > > i'm advocating running _native_ java - because all of the javascript > is replaced > > > You are suggesting that I write it in the GWT subset of Java, compile it > to JavaScript, take the JavaScript, convert that JavaScript into to Java > once again, and then run it as a desktop app. And since you are banging > on about pyjamas, it must go through a Python incarnation at some stage, > but I'm not sure where that fits in. > > *If* that is right, then I have 2 questions: > > 1) Where did the web site go? (And how do I get paid for it) > > 2) If I don't actually need a web site, and it all ends up as Java, why > didn't I just write it in Java in the first place? > > I haven't read this right, have I?
I known nothing about pyjamas, but I'm intrigued about what lkcl has been discussing. What he has done (and is suggesting could be done with GWT) is to have a browser-based application (via a Java->Javascript translater like GWT) and a desktop application (via a direct Java runtime) derived from the *same* codebase. Why bother, you ask? For your mobile or infrequent users, perhaps a browser-based solution is preferable. At the same time, people who sit in front of a stationary desktop system may prefer the look and feel of a desktop application. With the pyjamas approach, you can satisfy both constituents with a single set of code. -- Guy Rouillier --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
