> > But would it be possible in the future to allow building GWT-app by reusing > previously built "GWT-dlls"
It is already possible. Just build your "dll" project and export a Jar to be used within your ".exe". On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:34 AM, yves <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Some times ago I had same kind of questions than bkardell. > > Actually I would reformulate it another way : I compare the problem to > an .exe that is using .dll files > > If you build a new .exe app you may reuse existing .dlls > > I understand that this is not possible with GWT as when you compile > your GWT-app, you compile the entire code in once. > The big advantage is the javascript optimization. > > But would it be possible in the future to allow building GWT-app by > reusing previously built "GWT-dlls" ? > This implies that those "GWT-dlls" have a know API-contract used by > the main "GWT-exe" > > In a distributed and disparate environment this has been solved with > the SOA concept using SOAP, an ESB,... with all the paylod and > complexity allowing the communication between the components. > > So I don't have in mind an ESB solution, as the environment is not > distributed nor disparate. > > But in the context of GWT, would it be nonsense (for the future of > course) to build new app by using pre-compiled building blocks having > their own life-cycle independant of each other ? > > Yves > > > > On 15 déc, 21:40, zixzigma <[email protected]> wrote: > > if you use JQuery or any other Library, > > there is a core JSLibrary, > > and third party plugins. > > > > in a typical app/site you end up adding plugin after plugin to your > > site/app. > > > > each of those plugins are developed by separate developer somewhere in > > the world. > > they might have used similar utility library, but when you use them > > together you have no idea. > > > > so this problem is not a GWT related problem. > > > > your team/company should put in a place a process regarding code- > > reuse. > > > > one alternative could be to rely on only one 3rd party provider, such > > as Ext, > > you can be pretty sure that they have a common base library > > underneath. > > you might have to pay. well decisions are about tradeoff. > > the other alternative is assembling random plugins over the internet, > > developed by developers with varying degree of skills. > > you end up with bloated tangled JavaScript code, where plugin after > > plugin, > > contains duplicate code. this is the case with JQuery plugins. > > > > JQuery itself is a neat library, > > but if you assemble random plugins you found over the internet, > > the problem you described also applies. > > > > and it is not just JavaScript,in any programming language, > > if you rely on third-party packages/libraries, there is a good chance > > there might be a fair amount of duplication, > > resulting in larger size of file. > > thats why in Java World, build tools such as Maven, help manage > > dependencies, so you don't use more than what you need. > > but even then, each of the .jar in your project, might have used > > custom String/Math/Algorithms utility classes. > > > > it is not a GWT problem, becareful when using external libraries. > > tradeoff: you get a piece of functionality out of the box VS > > maintainability and duplication > > -- > 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. > > -- Christian Goudreau www.arcbees.com -- 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.
