Firstly thank you all for your continued discussion.

I would really love to start using this technology in a major new app
I'm about to start and the reason I'm asking questions / advice is
that I need to determine what the limitations are and whether or not
this is a viable option for my use cases.

Note that we have an existing front end in .Net with a Java middle
tier serving XML to the client.

I have never been happy with this arch and the split of skills, build,
test, deployment mechanisms.

The .Net front end only exists to give the user's a richer UI
experience - but it's a pain.

I was hoping that GWT would be the enabling technology to ditch
the .Net/Windows.

I can see GWT working fine for simple forms or short grids but I must
be able to support long grids.

I would not put an explicit grid paging based approach in front of the
users.

The point about DHTMLX or other live-grids being a "paging" approach
is true from a technical standpoint, but not true from a user-
experience viewpoint and that is what really matters.


My eval criteria for grids has been ...
- sorting/grouping capability
- fast load, which means sub-second rendering of 200 rows of data and
no more than 2 or 3 seconds for 2000 rows (this would be worse than my
existing .Net solution)

In the case of the second requirement I would accept a 'live grid
approach' - which would mean that the requirement could be interpreted
as...
- "fast load, which means 200ms rendering of first 'page' of data for
a set up-to 2000 rows and no more than 200ms for any subsequent page"
(200ms is effectively instantaneous from a user perspective).

My feeling from what I've seen is that where IE (all versions) is
concerned, none of the currently available widgets can support sorting/
grouping and perform adequately.

---

The bulk loading stuff (http://google-web-toolkit-
incubator.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demo/BulkLoadingTableDemo/
BulkLoadingTableDemo.html) looks interesting but there's no sorting/
grouping.

The bulk load API on IE 7 does 2000 rows in <1sec which is great but
there's no sort/group.
and on chrome I can bulk insert 2000 rows in 200ms which is brilliant
except I must use IE.

---

Re the incubator / scrolltable...

See earlier I used the scroll table as a reference ..
http://google-web-toolkit-incubator.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demo/ScrollTable/index.html

It's just too slow on IE - worse still the perf actually degrades
badly as we add additional batches of  rows.

IE7 tests ...
1st set of 100 took 7 secs
next set of 100 took 15 secs (ie total 200 rows)
thirst set of 100 took 27 secs   (ie total 300 rows)

What I was seeing was an exponential degradation in perf for each
batch of additional rows.

----

Given that all the grids I've looked at performs poorly in IE I expect
this will rule out GWT for apps like mine where the main deployment
env is IE and where grids of more than a few tens of rows  are used.


----

>From my angle it looks like JavaScript grid functionality is a non-
starter because of Microsoft.

The other browsers (particularly chrome) are an order of magnitude
faster.

Is there any benefit to Microsoft fixing this?
I doubt it.

Wouldn't the success of GWT for corporates actually distract attention
from SilverLight?

I'm not a much of a conspiracy theorist but if I were MS then I don't
think that fixing IE's obvious perf problems would be high on my list
of priorities.

----

Note I would love to be proved wrong on the GWT perf thing for grids.

- sorting
- grouping
- fast (defined above) on IE

----

Right now it looks like the only possible contender for me is a Live-
grid approach.

Its all so unfortunate - I can get 2000 rows of data into the client
with a network round trip, all in less than 100ms but it's taking
seconds to render.

Does anyone know of a good sorting/grouping live grid demo that allows
a variable number or rows to be inserted (for test purposes)?

Thanks Again folk,

John




On Dec 30, 8:50 am, fin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> then have a look at the table stuff in the incubator project. That
> contains sortable, pageable, scrollable table solutions which can have
> bulk renderers.
> It's also worth seeing the gwt mosaic project. It's table solutions
> are based on the tables of the incubator project (and seems to be easy
> to use but it is still under development).
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>
> On Dec 29, 9:58 pm, John Lonergan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi - I've taken a look at the grids in the incubator and they are
> > definitely much faster (200ms in IE7).
>
> > But those grids are very basic.
>
> > I need a grid that's a bit more functional ..
> > - sorting
> > - scrolling
> > - fixed non-scrolling header row (i.e.header doesn't scroll with rest
> > of grid)
>
> > Are such features available in a fast grid and are there any examples?
>
> > Thanks
>
> > John
>
> > On Dec 29, 1:18 pm, gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Hi John,
>
> > > 1) I concur with your timings on that incubator scroll table demo for
> > > FF at 3s, but not on IE at 15s: mine does it in 5s. Suggest something
> > > strange about your IE set up??
>
> > > 2) The DHTMLX  example lazily loads rows on demand using what looks
> > > like a scroll listener. Overall table size probably calculated from
> > > secondary DB query for num rows and overall height of scroll panel set
> > > accordingly. So user gets an impression of the overall size of table
> > > and can use scroll bar and/or page ip/down & up/down arrows to
> > > navigate it. It only ever fills in the visible portion. Impressive
> > > trickery, but IMO the only advantage this has over the more
> > > traditional <-prev : next-> button navigation format is user can
> > > scroll right down table quickly using the scroll bar handle. But how
> > > could user know which records they might hit by doing this? Clever
> > > programming maybe but is it good UI design? IMO that is questionable.
> > > There are other ways to make sense of large data sets in the UI.
>
> > > 3) Although it takes 3s for FF and 5s for IE to render the incubator
> > > scroll table example for 100 rows, my little test does this in both
> > > browsers <0.5s for 200 records, about 0.5s for 500, and about 3s for
> > > 2000 in FF, slightly longer for the 2000 in IE. OK, mine is running
> > > local and the examples are running over the net, but that doesn't
> > > account for all of the massive difference. This should be telling you
> > > something: tabular data grids can be complicated things, and people
> > > have wide variations in requirements for them, so ready made
> > > generalized grid components need shed loads of code to make them
> > > configurable for everybody's needs. In most cases if you roll your own
> > > component from base GWT widgets you will get blisteringperformance
> > > for your own use cases by comparison because you can build it to do
> > > exactly what you need it to do, and only what you need it to do.
>
> > > 4) If I wanted to use a ready made component for this I would head
> > > straight for the new PagingScrollTable in the incubator. Reason being
> > > that nothing makes into official GWT code unless it works as fast as
> > > is reasonably possible. GWT makes no compromise on this. What does a
> > > user care most about: a) how quickly and easily they can get at the
> > > information they need, or b) how pretty it looks in the screen?
>
> > > 5) If you are using an Ext family grid widget it will definitely run
> > > slow because there is heaps of Ext framework javascript running as
> > > well as actual widget code. Ext looks great, but does not compete with
> > > base GWT forperformanceor reconfigurability.
>
> > > 6) Paging *is* the answer to this problem: As you can see from your
> > > DHTMLX example above, what they do is paging but in a hidden way, i.e.
> > > they try to give the impression that the whole 50,000 rows are loaded,
> > > but of course in reality they are not, and this is obvious when you
> > > play with it because it simply isn't fast enough to deceive the eye.
>
> > > regards
> > > gregor
>
> > > On Dec 29, 9:30 am, fin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi John,
>
> > > > have a look at the bulk renderer feature of the GWT incubator 
> > > > project:http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-incubator/wiki/BulkTableR...
> > > > andhttp://code.google.com/docreader/#p=google-web-toolkit-incubator&s=go...
>
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Tibor
>
> > > > On Dec 29, 5:32 am, John Lonergan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi - yep there was a problem in my test program but now that that's
> > > > > ironed out I'm getting ok'ishperformancein FF3 and Chrome however in
> > > > > IE the perf is poor.
>
> > > > > All the time is spent populating the grid / rendering.
>
> > > > > IE is the target deployment platform - they only have IE installed.
>
> > > > > Have been looking for online samples that are useful for demonstrating
> > > > > a sort of problem I'm seeing.
>
> > > > > I found this useful demo that allowed me to verify that what I'm
> > > > > seeing re rendering times is not just a result of my dodgy program.
>
> > > > >http://google-web-toolkit-incubator.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/demo/Scr...
>
> > > > > I tested by clicking "Add 100 rows" on the Data Manipulation tab.
>
> > > > > The relative timings are ...
> > > > > IE      15 secs
> > > > > FF3     3 secs
> > > > > Chrome  1 sec
>
> > > > > This is consistent with what I see for my grid test.
> > > > > I'm using com.extjs.gxt.ui.client.widget.grid.Grid
>
> > > > > I suspect that the more basic a grid I use, the quicker the rendering
> > > > > will be.
>
> > > > > However, I assume one can achieve something similar to the 'big data
> > > > > set example" from 
> > > > > DHTMLXhttp://www.dhtmlx.com/docs/products/dhtmlxGrid/samples/loading_big_da...
> > > > > Where we fetch the data in chunks on-demand.
>
> > > > > However, I've noticed that the time taken to insert new rows on the
> > > > > GWT grids I've played with takes longer the more rows are inserted.
>
> > > > > Are there any good examples of what can be done with big grids without
> > > > > paging?
>
> > > > > On Dec 22, 2:15 pm, gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi John,
>
> > > > > > Yes, compile/browse ought to give you goodperformance. A 200 
> > > > > > Person[]
> > > > > > returned over RPC should enable you to resize and show all of them 
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > a Grid within about 0.5s in web mode (it works in compile/browse 
> > > > > > too).
> > > > > > Example code below. If it isn't doing so, then something is wrong 
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > what you are doing I think, not the RPC layer.
>
> > > > > > regards
> > > > > > gregor
>
> > > > > > public class SandBox implements EntryPoint {
>
> > > > > >     private VerticalPanel layout = new VerticalPanel();
> > > > > >     private ScrollPanel scroller = new ScrollPanel();
> > > > > >     private Grid grid = new Grid(1, 5);
>
> > > > > >     private Button fireBtn = new Button("Fire", new ClickListener() 
> > > > > > {
>
> > > > > >         public void onClick(Widget sender) {
> > > > > >             GenericListServiceAsync proxy =
> > > > > > GenericListService.App.getInstance();
> > > > > >             proxy.getPeople(new AsyncCallback() {
>
> > > > > >                 public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
> > > > > >                     Window.alert("RPC call failed");
> > > > > >                 }
>
> > > > > >                 public void onSuccess(Object result) {
> > > > > >                     Person[] people = (Person[]) result;
> > > > > >                     loadGrid(people);
> > > > > >                 }
> > > > > >             });
> > > > > >         }
> > > > > >     });
>
> > > > > >     public void onModuleLoad() {
>
> > > > > >         scroller.setHeight("" + (Window.getClientHeight() - 100));
> > > > > >         scroller.setWidth("100%");
> > > > > >         scroller.add(grid);
>
> > > > > >         grid.setBorderWidth(4);
> > > > > >         grid.setWidth("100%");
>
> > > > > >         layout.add(fireBtn);
> > > > > >         layout.add(scroller);
> > > > > >         layout.setSize("100%","100%");
> > > > > >         RootPanel.get().add(layout);
> > > > > >     }
>
> > > > > >     private void loadGrid(Person[] people) {
>
> > > > > >         grid.resize(people.length,5);
> > > > > >         for (int i = 0; i < people.length; i++) {
> > > > > >             Person p = people[i];
> > > > > >             grid.setWidget(i,0,new Label(p.getPersonId()));
> > > > > >             grid.setWidget(i,1,new Label(p.getFirstName()));
> > > > > >             grid.setWidget(i,2,new Label(p.getLastName()));
> > > > > >             grid.setWidget(i,3,new Label(p.getEmail()));
> > > > > >             grid.setWidget(i,4,new Label(p.getPhone()));
> > > > > >         }
> > > > > >     }
>
> > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:57 am, John Lonergan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Thanks Gregor
>
> > > > > > > I've hit the Compile/Browse button - I understood that caused the 
> > > > > > > app
> > > > > > > to run in 'web mode' (as opposed to hosted).
>
> > > > > > > Or do I need to run it in a standalone tomcat to get a perf boost?
>
> > > > > > > John
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 19, 1:48 pm, gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hi John,
>
> > > > > > > > It sounds like you might be testing this in hosted mode. If so, 
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > aware that hosted modeperformance, especially where RPC is 
> > > > > > > > concerned,
> > > > > > > > bears no relationship whatever to deployedperformance. If so, 
> > > > > > > > deploy
> > > > > > > > your example and I think you will be amazed at the difference. 
> > > > > > > > Note
> > > > > > > > building grids, trees etc involves drawing an order of 
> > > > > > > > magnitude more
> > > > > > > > HTML boxes than there are items to display. 200 odd Persons 
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > display < 0.5s when deployed, but go up to 1000+ and
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to