I'd give CellTable/DataGrid a try, if your model is suitable for it and your cells aren't so 'fancy'. You can use async requests, paging and lightweight widgets (cell widgets); should be more than enough to speed up fetching/rendering time.
There is also the ElementBuilder API that makes easy to create DOM elements from chaining calls in a builder fashion. Checkout some examples in http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/javadoc/com/google/gwt/examples/dom/builder/ . One interesting point is that you can use such builders also on server-side (the server-side actual implementation uses string manipulation instead of DOM operations) and send back the generated string to the client (never tried though) http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/1455802/ Also AFAICT Elemental does not work well (or at all) with IE prior to 9. On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 4:08:56 PM UTC+2, Roy wrote: > > I have a large GWT app which unfortunately is slow in some old browsers I > need to support (IE7). A major part of the slowness is my architecture - I > am using GWT-RPC to download model objects from the server and then > building a large HTML table in the browser using GWT Widgets. The table is > not fancy - just text, links, and images - but it can get pretty big. > > I'm considering fixing this by building some of my HTML on the server and > then downloading it over GWT-RPC as a string, and injecting it in to the > DOM using setInnerHtml(). I will still have to do some manipulation later > in the browser though (my UI refreshes periodically in the background). > What I would really like would be to write my code in such a way that I > could decide at runtime if it was best to build the table on the server or > in the browser. > > Elemental looks like a promising way to do this - it would not be hard to > generate a server-side implementation of the Elemental HTML interfaces that > built up an HTML string, and then send that string over the wire to be > injected in the browser. My application logic would only interact with the > Elemental interfaces, so I could decide at runtime which implementation to > use. > > Does this sound reasonable or am I barking up the wrong tree here? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/0wEbiM1POFQJ. To post to this group, send email to google-web-toolkit@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.
