Hi Chris, I used SmartGWT since 1.0.
It has a great Widget library and a great integration with data providers(Database, XML, JSON, and so on). People in forum are very helpful. Isomorphic is a little, raw, but it's fine, some times we ask dumb questions.. :-P. Sanjiv is very committed, and prompt for help. Other advantage is that it's released in LGPL which let you use it in a commercial application without paying. But, everything has a but, my application is VERY custom, it's like a generic CRUD. And I need to made a lot of custom UI, based on it's widgets, and as SmartGWT is a wrapper for SmartClient JS I cannot change it's behavior directly in Java, only trivial things are accessible. I re-created my application on GXT 2.0.1 and it's sensational! It's coded 100% in Java(Except for JSNI...) and you can change widgets behavior just extending a class, for me, it's really important. And debug is FAR easier, as you can debug widget's, Stores and not have a JSNI method that you don't know what it does and if it has a bug or not. GXT is a GPL, which means that you cannot use it in a commercial application without releasing your source code, or you can buy a license(~ USD 330,00 without support, USD 579 with support). SmartGWT license starts at USD 745,00 without support, support price is only by request. Another bad point in GXT is it's Widget library, SmartGWT is far bigger and have complex widgets, GXT has only the basic++.. :-P I prefer to pay USD 500 and have access to their SNV instead of waiting to Sanjiv commit a new build of SC in the SmartGWT SVN. You know, sometimes you really need "instant" access to corrections. SmartGWT or SmartClient don't have this option, the SVN has confidential things... I'm not defending one or another, just exposing my point of view. Both are fine, just look for these points that are more important to you. Regards, Tercio On Aug 15, 5:22 am, Aladdin <[email protected]> wrote: > The only difference that the GWT compiler will not include the JS in > the downloadable files. So the optimization is not only for the speed > it's also for the size of the application. > > If you wanna developed huge project SmartGWT is the way to go, but > remember that your minimum app is going to be 1mb in size because of > the SmartGWT core files. > > On Aug 14, 10:34 pm, ckendrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Malte, > > > As far as once-ever load time, if you're building an enterprise > > application with several screens and lots of productivity features, > > you're going to be using substantially all of SmartClient - if it was > > written in Java, the impact of the GWT compiler's static analysis > > would be negligible. If you're building something more trivial, just > > a few components and basic interactions, it doesn't really matter what > > you use, anything will do. > > > On performance, SmartGWT is already more than fast enough in terms of > > UI interactions. It doesn't matter whether a menu appears in 40 > > milliseconds or 60, humans literally cannot perceive that difference. > > So, while I would argue that future changes to the GWT compiler are > > not going to beat SmartClient's hand-coded JavaScript, it doesn't > > matter anyway, it makes no perceptible difference. > > > What does matter for real world performance is a feature like Adaptive > > Filtering, which radically cuts down on trips to the server, improving > > responsiveness and scalability: > > > http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/#grid_adaptive_filter_fe... > > > SmartGWT has half a dozen other features that make similar, real world > > impacts on performance. This is what actually matters in a deployed > > application. > > > On Aug 14, 10:59 am, Malte <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > For a few month a had the same problems: GXT or SmartGWT and I choose > > > GXT. Ok now why? > > > The main reason was the speed. Cause the extjs team recreated the > > > whole library in pure GWT code, what make it amazing fast. But that > > > was for a few month. Currently SmartGWT has nearly the same > > > performance, but I think the main reason is that the browsers are now > > > much faster (I am using Firefox 3.5). Currently I am thinking again, > > > but I am not a fan of wrapper libraries. I know there is a lot of work > > > in creating SmartGWT, but there are some disadvantages: > > > 1. When the GWT compiler gets better and can optimize more and more, > > > the SmartGWT library will not get any of these advantages. > > > 2. Loading time! Sure after the first load the load time will be equal > > > to pure GWT application. But the first time is the time where the user > > > decides to stay on this page or not... in most cases there is no > > > second chance. > > > 3. Upcoming features like runAsync bring no advantages. > > > > Greetz > > > Malte --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
