Frank, First of all, this thread seems to have 2 different topics and I have not said anything about Vaadin as I have no experience with it and that seems to be what Joonas is referring to. Second of all, my problem is that you call them "GWT enterprise architects". When you break it down it is Java EE with a Javascript client and people think GWT is going to provide an end-to-end solution. GWT dead code elimination is an important capability which Ray Cromwell has emphasized with GWTQuery in some of his old Google I/O talks and I only point it out because I see it as the leading disadvantage to SmartGWT in particular. I am a Java EE developer who advocates GWT as the client framework. So as far as a SOA goes, yes I believe I know more than the average GWT developer. The problem is that too many people on this group think of GWT as only a complete framework as is the result of the GAE integration, but when it comes down to it all GWT provides is a JS cross-compiler for the client with a custom communications protocol built on REST. You need to realize that not everyone uses GAE and some of us must provide interfaces or integrate with other technologies. The problem that Marius has run into is that he is writing a client to integrate with a .net REST server, therefore the arguments about GWT-RPC were moot, which is all I was trying to point out as far as why people might choose REST over GWT-RPC as I often have to expose my services to .net clients. And if you disagree with me with my statements that overlay types is the fastest and most efficient way to deal with a JSON REST service or that GWT as it is right now is not a full UI library, but is heading that way let's here some arguments against it. It doesn't help with discussion by just coming in and saying you guys are stupid and everything said here is wrong, tell us what you think is wrong and why so we can have a healthy discussion about it.
On Aug 16, 11:40 am, Frank Argueta <[email protected]> wrote: > Joonas, > This thread cannot be taken seriously and has some terrible advise. It's > like the blind leading the blind. Stefan and lineman78 in particular. I miss > the days that Rienier would lash out when people spread misinformation or > gave incorrect advise on this group. Alteast it kept the quality of the > responses high but right now this forum is running wild and everyone who has > read about GWT dead code elimination thinks they are GWT enterprise > architects. > > -Frank > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Joonas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please do not judge by the Calc example - it is just a minimalistic > > "Hello World" type example for quickly showing how events are managed > > in Vaadin. Of course one should do such a trivial application (with no > > server-side needed at all and just a few lines of business logic) in > > just JavaScript - there is no need for any frameworks at all. > > > For a more sophisticated analysis on communications, please read > > >http://philipp-baerfuss-magnolia.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-vaadin-line... > > In this article Magnolia team has estimated that real world > > application can expect comparable number of ajax roundtrips both in > > GWT as in Vaadin. (Most of the data have to go back to server in any > > case). > > > On Aug 15, 8:26 pm, Stefan Bachert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would avoid vaadin. Agreed that vaadin looks good out of the box, > > > vaadin falls back into the poor old fat-client architecture. > > > GWT supports a real responsive client-server architecture but vaadin > > > uses GWT like a display server. > > > > You can test the difference using the samplehttp://demo.vaadin.com/Calc > > > > Click a number and it tooks 300ms until the calc will display it. > > > This latency is a direct consequence of choosing the poor old > > > architecture. > > > > Stefan Bacherthttp://gwtworld.de > > > > On 10 Aug., 09:02, Nathan Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I would look into vaadin. We just looked at it recently, and I think > > > > it's a good alternative to straight GWT, but we can't switch because > > > > it's a pretty significant change. > > > > > On Aug 10, 5:23 am, Shawn Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm looking to get this group's feedback before I present my > > findings > > > > > > to the team. What do you think? > > > > > > If open source is nice then go for gpl and ExtGWT (GXT). If you > > don't > > > > > pay the commercial fee, then you have to open source your project I > > > > > believe. > > > > > > Shawn > > > -- > > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
