> Would it be that hard to get the general public to accept a new internet > that involves application browsers? I think that you dramatically underestimate people’s reluctance to install something new. It took a long time for the web and its protocols to reach the levels of saturation that they currently have. Trying to create a brand new one would just about be an exercise in futility. But about GWT specifically... think about it like this. GWT is the evolution of web development. It does what computer languages and development technologies have always done. They took a look at what was needed Javascript, CSS, html, Ajax and they encapsulated it allowing the developer to compose solutions to their specific needs without (or with little) regard for the underlying complexities. Compare that what a high level language like C or Fortran are. They allow you to compose solutions to your problems in relatively easy to manage functions. You don’t care what it takes in assembly language to get user input from a keyboard you just create an input stream. This level of encapsulation is what GWT brings to the table for the web and in my opinion it is simply brilliant in its execution. I’ve been doing web and app development professionally for over 12 years now and I can’t remember the last time I was this excited about a new technology. I find that being able to compose web UI’s with a rich programming language to be liberating. Now that I’ve gone completely off track, to address your concern more directly: what would a new protocol mean for me as a developer? If all it provides is a way for me to execute Java (or some other high level language) on the client then for one thing it’s not really giving me anything fundamentally new. Especially if the UI Widget set was still based on Swing or AWT or the like. What it really does is limits where my app can be used because no one (or very few people) will have the ability to connect to it. The inherent ability to push from the server is pretty trivial in comparison to not having an app that can be used by the majority of people without requiring them to install new software and potentially modify firewall or other hardware settings. I mean, I’d rather just fake push by polling the server and have it usable to everyone. Ajax makes that trivial. And GWT makes Ajax trivial.
On Sep 23, 8:32 am, lusus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, have a look at Java Web Start, .NET ClickOnce or Adobe AIR > > "install badge". > > Java Web Start is in the right direction, but is still limited pull > communication, unless you use sockets on other ports, which may or may > not be available. I am starting to realize that my want for push is > driving much of my thoughts, but I think it would make a significant > difference. > > > > > Something like Opera Unite? > > I am not familiar with Opera Unite. I'll check it out. > > > > > That'd be a Java applet, or a Java desktop app served with Java Web > > Start. > > refer back to my earlier point. push, push, push. > > > > > Yes! > > Though yes is technically an answer, I was hoping for a bit more > discussion. : ) > > > > > Who would you do it? using a "plug-in" for each language? how would it > > be different from Flash, Silverlight or Java applets? > > Basically, yes. The browser could have different VMs built into it. > AND run on it's own port with it's own protocols in order to > streamline the process. Discussion. > > > Have a look at "server-sent events" in HTML5 and the WebSockets > > protocol and API. > > I will. Thanks. > > > > > Why do you think we're all dealing with x-browser compat? because > > people don't upgrade their browsers; so why would it be different? > > But this new idea would halt the need for "upgrades". As long as the > browser understood the language, the display of the application would > be handled by the programmer. > > > > > No, why would it be? > > It would of course depend on the implementation of the "browser". But > I see Java (for instance) as being more encapsulated than things like > javascript, PHP, css, and html. You could control access to the client > computer's resources, etc. I will admit (and did) that this is my > least effective point. I again was looking for discussion. > > > Hey, "the WWW kiddy pool", you're a few years late! > > ??? I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
