Hi Sanjiv, It's a really great work! I'm happy to see that you continue to develop GWT frameworks and you've developed a new great tool. Actually I'm using GWT-Ext. I'll check a SmartGWT in my new projects.
Best regards, Arthur On 24 nov, 09:32, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > thanks for your reply, agree with your comments. Re-reading my post I > agree it might look like I was, in a way, attaching smartGWT. It was > not meant to come through that way, nor was my intention to praise > GXT. > > It was only meant to be a comparison between approaches, JSNI vs Pure > GWT, and I definetely think that using JSNI as the foundation of any > GWT framework is not the right thing to do. Smart Client is an amazing > framework, but it is a JavScript framework. Using JSNI leaves you in > the cold when you need to debug, as an example, but I am sure you know > all that. > > I think you have done a great job with smartGWT, it looks really great > and I am sure it will have the success it deserves. > > Regards, > Francesco > > On Nov 23, 8:34 pm, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Fransceso, > > If you found a library that meets your needs, then good for you. > > Compile output size and runtime performance are two separate issues. A third > > party widget written in GWT Java, regardless of how small it compiles down > > to, doesn't magically make it run fast. Nor does it make it magically render > > perfectly on all browsers. As an example a TableGrid written in GWT Java > > could still perform really poorly, and not display consistently on all > > browsers. There are obviously several aspects to GWT that helps avoid leaks > > and such but this does not mean that any third party code written in GWT is > > 100% leak free. The GWT 1.6 event API is really neat and SmartGWT users > > it. Well written code is what will perform well and display consistently > > across various browser. > > > On the issue of performance, there are numerous posts made by paying GXT > > users that the performance of GWT-Ext is still better than GXT. You can > > search their forums. This is not to suggest that performance improvements > > cannot be made in SmartGWT. If you can give specifics, it would certainly > > help in resolving them. But without specifics like whether it was the > > initial load time, performance of specific widgets etc it will be difficult > > to act on. Feel free to post on the SmartGWT forums or create an issue on > > the smartgwt google code project. > > > On the issue of compile output size : The SmartClient library is extremely > > stable and developed over the past 8 years. If you peruse their forums, you > > will find that pretty much all questions are met with an answer explaining > > how the user can accomplish what they're trying to do. Their library is > > virtually bug free. I realize this is a strong statement, but its true. Only > > some 4-5 issues were patched post-release. Compare this to the bugs forum of > > any of your favorite libraries. SmartGWT will inherit these attributes once > > its past the few initial minor releases and issues are flushed out during > > this period. Due to the high level of stability of SmartClient, it can be > > viewed as the kernel of your web app which should be configured to be > > gzipped with an "Expires Never" header for a given version. This means that > > the browser will cache the "kernel" (SmartClient JS files) and the only code > > that gets downloaded is your application code, and not any code related to > > the widget / framework. Future releases of SmartGWT will provide a GWT > > linker that only pulls in the required files so this should cut down the > > total size of the application. > > > The SmartGWT showcase has some 250 samples which is 6 times more than the > > GXT showcase so its not quite apples to apples when it comes to initial load > > time. > > > Finally please read my blog > > entryhttp://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_releasedifyou haven't > > already done so. I go over the SmartGWT fundamentals, the concept of a > > DataSource and how it will lead to a cleaner architecture and can cut > > application code significantly. I mention how a master detail page can be > > written in as little as 10 lines using a reusable DataSource definition that > > describes an entity / model class. Plus the reduced number of lines of code > > on the server as well. > > > This is the first release of SmartGWT and while it is quite stable and has > > been tested and used by early adopters for the past four weeks, users can > > expect any rough edges / bugs / performance issues / better skins etc to be > > ironed out over the course of the next few minor releases. > > > As mentioned earlier, if users have found a library that meets their needs, > > thats great and there's no need to look further. And for the others, feel > > free to evaluate SmartGWT to see if it helps meet your requirements. If you > > feel that there are things that can be improved please post on the SmartGWT > > forum or create an issue on the google code project page. > > > Thanks, > > Sanjiv > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:49 AM, francescoNemesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > smartGwt looks very appealing and very rich in features, but it is > > > very slow. This is due to the fact that it is a JSNI wrapper around > > > the Smart Client framework. This means loosing all the benefits of > > > having a pure GWT implementation (I will not go into details on this). > > > > I think a comparison with GXT (also known as GWT Ext, at this address > > >http://extjs.com/products/gxt/) does not make any sense as GXT is a > > > pure GWT feature implementation and it is lightining fast once > > > compiled. > > > > The only appropriate comparison would be with gwt-ext (http:// > > > code.google.com/p/gwt-ext/) which is JSNI wrapper around the ExtJS > > > javascript framework (developed by the same company that developed > > > GXT), much like smartGwt is a JSNI wrapper around the Smart Client > > > framework. > > > > This forum is full of people complaining about how slow and cumbersome > > > gwt-ext is, and I think exactly the same problems will be encountered > > > with smartGwt.On the other hand GXT is not affected by any of these > > > issues. True, GXT at the moment is not as rich in features at the > > > moment, but they are getting there. > > > > I do not work for the ExtJS company, I only talk from experience. I > > > used the JavaSciprt ExtJS framework for a big project for a full year > > > and I understand exactly when people say the documentation is poor and > > > performance slow. Having embranced GWT to progress and to make my life > > > easier, I would never want to to have the same problems again with Js > > > frameworks, even less with GWT frameworks with embed the same old Js > > > issues, like gwt-ext or smartGWT. > > > > GXT is a completely different matter and I think it is a top > > > framework. I have been using it for a few months now and never gave me > > > any major issues. It is a pure GWT implementation, no javaScriptObject > > > or JSNI. Period. > > > > Huge credit to Sanjiv for his work on smartGWT, but personally I think > > > this is the wrong approach to any GWT framework. JSNI is very useful > > > if used to integrate the odd js function here and there, not as a > > > foundation to a framework itself. > > > > Regards, > > > Francesco > > > > On Nov 23, 10:33 am, "Juan Backson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > I am wondering if the performance is due to too many items inside the > > > demo > > > > or it is just slower than gwt-ext? In gwt-ext, the demo is much > > > > smaller. > > > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM, rakesh wagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > great job Sanjeev. Keep up the good work. Always love smart-client. > > > > > Smart client is much better compared to ext-js as far as licensing is > > > > > concerned. However the showcase looks little slow compared to the > > > > > original js based smart-client as well as gwt-ext. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Nov 22, 6:48 pm, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Excellent Job! > > > > > > > some things are rough around the edges but overall this release is > > > > > > impressive! Gotta fix those image downloads though. And adding a > > > > > > couple of the "standard" schemes wouldn't hurt. But you already > > > > > > mentioned these things in your release announcement post anyway. > > > Can't > > > > > > wait. > > > > > > > Cool stuff! > > > > > > > On Nov 22, 8:32 am, ART <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This looks cool. > > > > > > > Ann. > > > > > > > > On Nov 18, 9:50 am, "Sanjiv Jivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all,I have just released SmartGWT 1.0. > > > > > > > > > Here is the release announcement : > > > > >http://www.jroller.com/sjivan/entry/smartgwt_1_0_released > > > > > > > > > Google Code Project Page :http://code.google.com/p/smartgwt/ > > > > > > > > > Showcase Demo :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/ > > > > > > > > > Javadocs :http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/javadoc/ > > > > > > > > > SmartGWT uses the new GWT 1.6 event API's which is really neat > > > and > > > > > works > > > > > > > > great. > > > > > > > > > Seehttp:// > > > > > code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/ProposedEv... > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Sanjiv --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
