I don't disagree with you. Google provides implementations that work well in almost all configurations EXCEPT the panels. People expect the layout panels to act the same in all browsers and they don't. In most cases they are just extensions of a table. If you don't want to think about any differences between browsers at all you would be better off using a true UI infrastructure like GXT or SmartGWT, but these are very expensive and not very flexible. For example, I often see questions on here about people complaining that their horizontal panel looks right in FF, but not IE. This is because the HorizontalPanel only wraps a table and you are still subject to IE's table layout issues. Same thing with DIVs and running into the box model bug. Yes the layout panels do require standards mode, but the only time where that caused an issue for me is I had gotten into the bad habit of not putting units in my css and figuring it would assume px, which it doesn't do in standards mode. The layout panels aren't for every application, but they are really nice if you are writing more of an application than a website and it makes the dock panel act correctly across all browsers, which I always had issues with IE before.
On Aug 5, 12:13 pm, darkflame <[email protected]> wrote: > Put it this way, I very rarely have to browser sniff in my code, and > I've done some fairly extensive gwt products that run on IE6. > I think your underestimating just how much it compensates for ie's > problems, even with normal widgets. > > While you can certainly manually take advantage of Deferred Binding, > GWT does it automatically for many standard widgets, deals with a few > dom issues, and (imho) is one of the biggest saleing points of gwt. > > Also, I'm not sure the new Layout panels will support IE6 that well. > Haven't had a chance to check them out in a project yet, but they do > demand standards mode, and the idea seems to be to use the native > layout handling of the browser more, not less. I'd hazard that that > might well be worse when dealing with ie6, not better. > (though it should be faster). > > On Aug 5, 6:08 pm, lineman78 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is a misconception about GWT. It gives you the tools to handle > > IE6 problems, but it doesn't completely protect you from all of IE6's > > problems. The built in widgets do a pretty good job at dealing with > > IE problems and the layout panels do promise to act the same on all > > browsers, but the regular panels don't. All non-layout panels and > > most widgets are just wrappers around html objects, wo you will have > > to deal with the same layout bugs you would have to with pure html and > > javascript. However, GWT does provide some really nice tools for > > dealing with these differences. Deferred binding can be used to > > substitute different implementing classes depending on the browser. > > This can be demonstrated best by the way Google handles ImageResource > > under the covers. For IE it creates a traditional sprite by slapping > > a bunch of images together to make one, however in FF it actually > > inlines the bitmap data into the javascript, so it looks like: <img > > src="data:..."/>. Also, CssResource now provides conditionality so > > that you can make the css different depending on the browser. > > > On Aug 5, 1:59 am, Nicolas KONDRATEK <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I write an application in GWT, but I find many differences between IE > > > 7/8 and IE6. > > > > Gwt is it fully compatible with ie6 ou Google stop IE6 support ? > > > > Thanks you. -- 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.
