I am 100% agree about GXT Api as being not extensible, causing to produce parallel suite of widgets.
On Sep 30, 3:39 am, Jeff Larsen <[email protected]> wrote: > GWT may not have the most perfect API design, but saying GXT is a > design to implement is laughable at best. GXT has just barely enough > good things to make it worth using. BARELY. I keep their crappy > library segregated behind interfaces and wrap all their even types > waiting for the day I can rip that giant pile of crap out of my > project. > > Tell me without going to the docs or drilling into their source what > events a GXT button can handle. You can't by just looking at their > API. You want to extend some of their controls, you're screwed > because they, for not reason I'm able to discern, have tons of private > variables with no getter/setter. If you want slow crappy code where > you're constantly forced to go to the documentation then use GXT. If > you want to extend one of their classes you could easily be copy/ > pasting a ton of their code/heirarchy in order to get some minimal > functionality included. > > On Sep 29, 9:06 am, markM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we often times forget too that folks are producing these > > products for us for free. One can always pay for GWT EXT if they > > like. > > > On Sep 28, 12:38 pm, Brett Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Not to mention none of those three things have to do with "API Design"... > > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Broyer <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, Greg Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well, look at the JavaDoc for extended by > > > > > com.google.gwt.dom.client.Style.Unit (AKA Style.Unit). I don't think > > > > > it's possible to write worse "Documentation" than that, other than > > > > > perhaps writing something that is actively and consistently wrong. > > > > > Which doc are you talking about? the "CSS length units" part? (what > > > > more should it say? if you don't know what a CSS length unit is, you'd > > > > better stop doing web dev; or start learning CSS) the values and > > > > valueOf part? (they're not in the code, they come with the "enum" > > > > type, just like "extends java.lang.Enum<Style.Unit>") > > > > > > I assume people actually test code before it gets added to the > > > > > project. I assume those text cases are a pretty through workout of > > > > > all the code's claimed features. It's an Open Source project, so I > > > > > assume there's no commercial reason to keep those test cases hidden. > > > > > You mean these test cases? > > > > >http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/... > > > > > > Given that, why are there no *LayoutPanels in Showcase? > > > > > Fixed:http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8766 > > > > > -- > > > > 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.-Hidequoted text > > > >- > > > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
