Dear All,

 Please any one let me know Where can I download GWT-3.0 package


Ramesh

On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Ed <[email protected]> wrote:

> RestyGWT is one of the options. Another less mentioned is the low level
> RequestBuilder.  We moved to RB due to the large number of fields we are
> managing (400+) and use json on the client to consume the requests.
>
> Ed
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Vassilis Virvilis <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I have successfully ported a medium API (~30 methods) from GWT-RPC to
>> Resty-GWT. While everybody's case is unique it went surprisingly well for
>> me (as far as transitions go).
>>
>> 1) The big advantage is that although you can use RestyGWT with a
>> procedural SOAP logic (like GWT-RPC) you can start familiarize yourself
>> with the new API design of the Restful tomorrow word.
>>
>> 2) Another advantage for me was that I had already a WS stack (CXF) and
>> thus with GWT-RPC I was either reimplementing my CXF services or I was
>> proxying them.
>>
>> 3) By ditching GWT-RPC I was able to free myself from server side code.
>>
>> 4) It is now easier to work with standard json and json inspection tools
>> like console.log(object_received) and with browser's network inspection
>> tools
>>
>> 5) RestyGWT has a async interface in order to keep your familiar GWT-RPC
>> handlers so the changes in the code are minimal. What takes more work is to
>> ensure that all your object's are transmitted correctly over the wire. This
>> is not walk in the park but for simple objects it just works. For more
>> complex cases you may need to implement a Provider or something.
>>
>> 6) I don't know about your special @annotations that somehow remove the
>> need to specify interface + async_interface but for me this is a major
>> plus. The client code does not need to link to server definitions and for
>> me API is something that changes with great difficulty and rarely. So wher
>> API breaks I am editing both files - I don't mind.
>>
>>      Vassilis
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that the future of GWT RPC does not seem bright in 3.0+ but
>>> I want to express my opinion that this is a HUGE mistake. GWT RPC is one of
>>> the most important things in GWT as it truly ties things together in large
>>> apps. Sure, it its raw form it is a bit cumbersome to use but it enables
>>> true code reuse with no extra coding. This is what sets GWT apart from the
>>> run-of-the-mill frameworks out there. Creating custom requests and
>>> responses is not maintainable and scalable in a large app that depends on
>>> extensibility and polymorphism. Ability to communicate almost any Java
>>> object graph without having to specifically annotate or declare anything,
>>> while preserving singletons is a huge advantage.
>>>
>>> Sure, it lacks a lot of things. We used it with out proprietary wrapper
>>> framework in a way that allows us to simply annotate sever-side methods we
>>> want to expose to the client and everything else is automagically handled -
>>> the client gains the visibility into relevant server classes and methods
>>> with same signatures other than getting results asynchronously. One can
>>> pass results of some method call as an argument of another all without
>>> leaving the sever and without having to wire boilerplate/weird code.For
>>> example, if we had the following code on the server
>>>
>>>   public class Foo {
>>>     public static Bar getBar() {
>>>       return new Bar();
>>>     }
>>>     public static String someText() {
>>>       return "Blah: " + System.currentTimeMillis();
>>>     }
>>>   }
>>>   public class Bar {
>>>     public String twice(String text) {
>>>       return text + text;
>>>     }
>>>   }
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .... with our annotations on the server (not shown) the following client
>>> code would be possible:
>>>
>>>    Foo.getBar().twice(Foo.someText(), new AsyncCallback<String>() {
>>>      ...
>>>      public void onSuccess(String result) {
>>>        ...
>>>      }
>>>    }
>>>
>>> ... no need for creating server + async interfaces, etc.
>>>
>>> With every other alternative we lose on simplicity and ability to
>>> communicate. All others require us to create more client-server
>>> communication code which we have been able to avoid.
>>>
>>> Needless to say, we'd be stuck in pre-3.0 land as we have a large code
>>> investment in GWT RPC - we could not accept losing it... but we do want to
>>> go to the newest GWT at any time. It would be greatly disappointing if we
>>> couldn't do this.
>>>
>>> I do not see the advantages of losing RPC. It does what it does better
>>> than anything else out there and is irreplaceable.
>>>
>>> Please do not get rid of it. Enhance it. It is what makes GWT better
>>> than the rest. It is what, together with the rest, allows seamless and
>>> uniform language use across the client and the server.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "GWT Users" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to [email protected].
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Vassilis Virvilis
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Users" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to