@mariyan nenchev, my bad, I forgot to mention that it's a EE feature. But the UI is available in the free version.
GXT API is much like the AWT API. On Feb 3, 2:21 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also using GXT on a very, very large project. My experience has > been pretty positive. I've been working with the GXT library over a > year. The appearance of most components can be changed pretty > easily. I prefer the GXT rendering model over GWT. We have custom > versions of nearly every GXT component and for the most part there's > only minor things that had to be changed in the last major GXT upgrade > 1.x -> 2.0 (but since our code-base is so large it took us nearly 1.5 > weeks to perform this upgrade. > > I did find the layout managers a little bit lacking so I wrote my own > layout manager which is far superior. Most of our UI's are form > related and fairly complex which is where simple uni-directional > layouts like the ones in GXT are worst suited. I also borrowed some > swing/awt concepts such as invalidate/revalidate so if you change a > value in any component which will affects its bound size, it will > bubble up invalidating all components to the top layout container and > then run the layout. But after all of this, I'm not sure if the GXT > layout managers are the best approach. Performing layout via > javascript is a little sluggish - except in chrome. I'm hoping the > other browsers catch up. > > If you decide to use GXT 2.0, you won't be able to use some of the > newer GWT features, like UIBinder. And for the most part, once you > start using GXT, you should avoid using any plain GWT concepts. All > of our components are built off of the base GXT component and > boxcomponent classes. > > If I were working on a simpler project, such as a personal project, I > would use plain GWT. > > On Feb 3, 8:49 am, Jeff Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We're currently using GXT on a large project and I'd like to say that > > > "GXT's layout system is alien to GWT, the documentation is > > nonexistant, > > the appearance is highly inflexible, and the attitude of the support > > team sucks (even for customers that pay for support). Consider, for a > > moment, that there is nobody at Ext commenting on the GXT-related > > threads that show up in this forum. Totally out to lunch. " > > > is 100% accurate to my experience. I don't have the luxury of ripping > > it out of my app at work, but I wouldn't use it in personal app if it > > were free. > > > Everything you know about GWT and GWT widgets can basically be thrown > > out the window. The event model is entirely different. The widgets > > have a ton of properties that are set on construction that you cannot > > change. Oh and when you decide on GXT know that you're probably going > > to be locked into that version and will not be able to upgrade to any > > new versions of the software. > > > I would recommend not using GXT. > > > On Feb 3, 2:22 am, Sanjiv Jivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bogdan, > > > Thanks for the kind words :) Constructive criticism is always welcome as > > > the > > > goal is to improve the product. However please do follow up with the > > > appropriate posts and report enhancements / issues in tracker. > > > > Regarding the Calendar event dialog customization, that appears to be an > > > enhancement request rather than a bug. I still could not find a user id by > > > your name however I did find a similar thread : > > > >http://forums.smartclient.com/showthread.php?t=4900 > > > > As you can see, the user was advised to > > > > 1) either create an enhancement request that other users could vote on or > > > 2) make the enhancement themselves since it is open source and share their > > > work. > > > > However no such enhancement request was created in tracker. Please email > > > me > > > your SmartGWT forum user name so that I can view the other posts / issues > > > reported by you. > > > > New features are being added to SmartGWT / SmartClient at a really really > > > fast pace. This should be evident by the release notes of each new > > > release, > > > and the commit logs in SVN. For example some 10 significant new features > > > have already been added since the SmartGWT 2.0 release, and countless > > > other > > > minor enhancements as well. So unless users file issues and enhancements, > > > it > > > is not going to be easy to track. Moreover even if you do have a feature > > > request, prioritization will depend on the number of votes it receives > > > which > > > is typical of how most OSS works. If you are a commercial entity you also > > > have the option of contacting Isomorphic and getting the feature added in > > > a > > > timeframe that meets your needs. As mentioned above, you can also dive in > > > and make the change yourself since it is open source. > > > > So kindly be a little patient when reporting enhancements and issues, and > > > follow up by posting a request in tracker with a testcase if you > > > encounter a > > > bug. > > > > Sanjiv > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Bogdan Maryniuck > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Sanjiv Jivan <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > It's quite easy to criticize a library, isn't it? > > > > > Sanjiv, I remember all that ugly story with you and Ext stuff. And > > > > really appreciate the thing you do. But still, what's wrong with a > > > > constrictive criticism? I am using SmartGWT as the only lib so far in > > > > many projects (although free version :-). So at least I have a right > > > > to "smoke my cigarette" and share with others that the lib is not very > > > > brilliant BUT usable, so no need to run elsewhere, but TRY to improve > > > > it (that's what I said between the lines, BTW). And you also have a > > > > right to listen my stupid feedback and make your own conclusions. :-) > > > > > Besides, as a little example among dozen of others, folks (including > > > > myself) were sending multiple complains to the forum about calendar > > > > dialogs that are not customizable, that they are literally fugly: > > > > because who would need ridiculously big dialog while editing an event, > > > > but widgets are very small and grouped at left/top corner? — all the > > > > rest space is for banners and ads or something?.. How to nicely > > > > replace that dialog with my own and why this is so obvious thing > > > > simply hard-coded? etc. Or I am missing something and this is changed > > > > already? So far I've simply either got ignored or being told "we won't > > > > change that". > > > > > Hence, if you, guys, "won't change that because we said so", then I > > > > doubt anyone would waste their time writing any feedback or bugreport > > > > knowing it will be rejected/ignored anyway... > > > > > -- > > > > bm > > > > > -- > > > > 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]<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > > > > [email protected]> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. -- 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.
