Hi Keith, Great great !!! In fact currently it may works but it is need some twix in the WTP metadata project file. BTW it a very comfortable environment, where it is easy and efficient to test general integration (WEB1 + WEB2). Very efficient, because you can choose or not to debug client/server part, so it can (re)start very quickly. The only small issue I have is that I have to add the extra "gwt.codesvr" parameter to use the dev mode, will it be still the case with GEP 1.3 or could we activate/force the usage of dev mode without altering the url ?
Many many thx for GWT. Best regards, Olivier On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Keith Platfoot <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > GPE 1.3 should be compatible with WTP/Eclipse EE. For example, you'll be > able to easily add GWT and/or App Engine to an existing Dynamic Web Project, > and then debug the application using the GPE Web Application launch > configurations. For GWT projects that have a separate backend (e.g. an > existing Tomcat or Jetty instance), you will be able to launch your GWT > font-end in the existing server, so you can debug both client-side code and > server-side code simultaneously. If you change your GWT code during a > debugging session, you can refresh to get the updates immediately, and of > course do the same for server-side code and static resources changes as well > (if your server adapter supports it). > > Keith > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:17 AM, olivier nouguier < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Thx a lot for all this, it will clearly simplify GWT with Maven, but did >> you plan to add some WTP support in the next GEP release ? >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Keith Platfoot <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Yes, I've been meaning to reply back to this thread. Thanks for >>> reminding me, Brian! :-) >>> >>> Our plans for the next release of the Google Plugin for Eclipse (1.3) >>> include 4 changes designed to make integration with Maven and J2EE projects >>> easier: >>> >>> 1. The WAR directory can now be configured to be *any*project-relative >>> path (e.g. >>> src/main/webapp if you're using Maven). You'll also be able to >>> specify whether that directory is source-only (typical Maven/J2EE >>> scenario), >>> or whether it should also function as the WAR output directory from >>> which to >>> run/debug or deploy to App Engine. If your WAR directory is input * >>> and* output (which will remain the default for new Web App projects), >>> the plugin will manage synchronizing the contents of WEB-INF/lib >>> WEB-INF/classes with your project's build path and compiled output. >>> Otherwise, we'll leave your WAR source directory alone and you'll need >>> to >>> specify your WAR output location when launching, deploying, etc (the >>> plugin >>> will remember the location once you set it the first time). >>> 2. The Web App launch configuration UI is being redesigned to allow >>> you to see, and if necessary change, *any* of the launch arguments. >>> Previously, we were waiting until launch time to set many of these >>> arguments based on heuristics that were invisible and inaccessible to >>> you. >>> Now you'll be in full control of how your projects get launched. Also, >>> we're adding the capability to automatically migrate your launch >>> configurations when necessary, for example, updating the -javaagent flag >>> when changing App Engine SDKs. >>> 3. GWT/App Engine projects will no longer require our SDK library on >>> the classpath. This means Maven users will be able to pull in JAR files >>> from their M2 repository as they're accustomed to and the plugin won't >>> mind >>> a bit. >>> 4. The severity of any problem marker generated by the plugin will be >>> fully customizable via an Errors/Warnings preference page (similar to the >>> Java Errors/Warnings page), letting you specify either Error, Warning, or >>> Ignore. >>> >>> We'll also be including a few smaller features and bug fixes as well. >>> >>> What does everyone think about the 4 changes outlined above? We've been >>> testing the plugin against various Maven and J2EE configurations to try to >>> ensure that we've eliminated the most critical roadblocks. However, we're >>> very interested in also having you folks take it for a spin before the >>> official release date (slated for next month). We're not quite ready yet, >>> but stay tuned for a 1.3 preview build to be made available hopefully in a >>> few weeks. We'll distribute it as a zip file for dropin >>> installation<http://code.google.com/eclipse/docs/install-from-zip.html> so >>> it will come with the standard warnings and caveats (use with a clean >>> Eclipse install and workspace, use at your risk, etc.). However, it will >>> hopefully give you a chance to give us any last-minute feedback about our >>> changes before the final release. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:55 PM, bkbonner <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Keith, are you going to give the folks who replied to your message >>>> some sort of thoughts on what you're going to implement and hopefully >>>> let us try it before you end up releasing the next release of the >>>> plugin? >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> On Jan 13, 11:35 am, Keith Platfoot <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Hi folks, >>>> > >>>> > For the next release of the Google Plugin for Eclipse, we're planning >>>> on >>>> > making a few tweaks to make life easier for Maven users. That's right: >>>> we've >>>> > seen the stars on the issue tracker, and have decided it's time to >>>> act. I >>>> > would say, "we feel your pain", but the problem is, we don't. Which is >>>> to >>>> > say, nobody on the plugin team actually uses Maven (everybody around >>>> here >>>> > uses Ant). However, I've been researching Maven to determine exactly >>>> what >>>> > changes we should make to allow it to work more seamlessly with the >>>> Google >>>> > Eclipse Plugin. I've read the relevant issues and groups postings, so >>>> I >>>> > think I have a rough idea of what needs to happen. However, before we >>>> go and >>>> > make any changes, I wanted to ask for the community's advice. So, >>>> here are >>>> > some questions for you. >>>> > >>>> > What is the typical workflow of a GWT developer using Maven? >>>> > >>>> > I've installed Maven and the gwt-maven-plugin 1.2-SNAPSHOT and managed >>>> to >>>> > create a GWT 2.0 app with the provided archetype. After some tweaking, >>>> I'm >>>> > able to GWT compile, debug with Eclipse (though not via our Web App >>>> launch >>>> > configuration), create a WAR, etc. However, I'm more interested in how >>>> you all >>>> > are doing things. For example: >>>> > >>>> > How do you... >>>> > >>>> > - Create a new project? >>>> > - Perform GWT compiles? >>>> > - Debug with Eclipse? >>>> > - Run your tests? >>>> > - Create a WAR for deployment? >>>> > >>>> > What specific pain points do Maven users run into when using the >>>> Google >>>> > plugin? >>>> > >>>> > I know one major obstacle is that our plugin currently treats the war >>>> > directory as both an input (e.g. static resources, WEB-INF/lib, >>>> > WEB-INF/web.xml) and output (WEB-INF/classes, GWT artifacts like >>>> nocache.js >>>> > and hosted.html) . Maven convention, however, says that >>>> /src/main/webapp >>>> > should be input only, which means that hosted mode (or development >>>> mode, in >>>> > GWT 2.0) needs to run from a staging directory (e.g. gwt:run creates a >>>> /war >>>> > folder on demand). This mismatch results in the plugin creating >>>> spurious >>>> > validation errors and breaks our Web App launch configuration. >>>> > >>>> > Another incompatibility is that Maven projects depend on the GWT Jars >>>> in the >>>> > Maven repo, whereas our plugin expects to always find a GWT SDK >>>> library on >>>> > the classpath. >>>> > >>>> > Are my descriptions of these pain points accurate? If so, one >>>> possible >>>> > solution would be for the plugin to allow the definition of an input >>>> war >>>> > directory (e.g. src/main/webapp) separate from a launch-time staging >>>> > directory, and for us to relax the requirement that all GWT projects >>>> must >>>> > have a GWT SDK library. So tell me: would these changes adequately >>>> reduce >>>> > the friction between Maven and the Google plugin? >>>> > >>>> > Also, are there other problems Maven users are running into when using >>>> the >>>> > plugin? >>>> > >>>> > Thanks in advance for all feedback, >>>> > >>>> > Keith, on behalf of the Google Plugin for Eclipse team >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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%[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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the >> brave. >> -- >> Mohandas Gandhi >> >> -- >> 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%[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]<google-web-toolkit%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en. > -- A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave. -- Mohandas Gandhi -- 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.
