I don't know the full story, but maybe the problem is not a technical one. You can't change technology (Flash => GWT) without doing some change in your architecture... If they don't want to explore new way, they must keep their technology.
Olivier On Jun 22, 12:34 pm, rudolf michael <roud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well this is similar to the Generator/Factory concepts. > > They don't want to go with this approach although i was able to load the > Factory/Generator class from the server and use it in the client code to > generate my UIs from the definitions POJOs. > > Since they have a flash background, they want to load an INSTANCE of a UI > View from the server and plug it in its appropriate location. I have already > told them that my UIObjects are not serializable and i cannot get them from > the server but then this might be feasible with native js and static html. > > I am having hard time to convince them that the Generators are not bad. > > regards, > Rudolf Michael > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Olivier Monaco <olivier.mon...@free.fr>wrote: > > > > > If your need is only to define new view (with few logic), maybe using > > a descriptive language will be better. You can write a templating > > engine using GWT like a XUL interpreter or something like that. This > > is not the best approach for optimized JS (file size, speed...) but > > may be the best compromise. I think GWT compilation is too heavy to be > > done on server, and worse, on the fly. > > > Olivier > > > On Jun 21, 4:52 pm, ruds <roud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hello there, > > > I know that this topic has been circling around for a while and i > > > thought to bring it up again just for the sake of discussion and in > > > case someone else has found an alternative for it. > > > > One of our requirements is to be able to load a compiled GWT module at > > > runtime, bc we have a compiler unit that runs on the server where you > > > can define the UI Components of a UI View and customized it per user > > > and language. > > > Since we are compiling all the Views through our compiler unit(Not GWT > > > Compiler) then we dont want to load the screen dynamically. it is much > > > like flex/flash, they do the design through a flash designer and then > > > they compile the MXML and generate the SWFs. at runtime you just load > > > the generated SWFs defined per user/language based on some params. > > > > We need to be able to do the same thing in GWT, as now they are asking > > > for a Web 2.0 version, so i thought first of loading the module > > > dynamically then it turned out that this is a bad idea. Any hint over > > > Code Splitting +Deferred Binding?? but will those 2 options work in my > > > case? > > > > i need to load the generated js of a View as if you have created it > > > and set its properties per user/language. so if my main Module is the > > > application entry point where i have 4 sections to fill in my UIs then > > > i need to load the UIs as if they are ready in terms of design and add > > > them in their appropriate locations. > > > > Dunno if i was clear enough in my explanation but comments/suggestions > > > are welcome. > > > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > > > > best regards, > > > Rudolf Michael > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google Web Toolkit" group. > > To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs > > cr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > 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 google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
