Personally, I am willing to pay for a license once I have money; I just resent that I cannot use the old Ext 2.0.4 either - which was under LGPL - to avoid the license. It is unjust for the Ext author to retroactively apply a new modified license to old versions.
On Aug 28, 9:44 am, Anil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently Sanjiv Jivan is implementing a gwt interface to Smart- > client. > seehttp://www.jroller.com/sjivan/ > > This was because Ext decided to change the licensing model whereby we > will all have to pay to use Ext. > > I think Sanjiv may be repeating a mistake to his chagrin down the > road. > > Suggestion: have a new product Gwt-X that use the Adapter design > pattern and config files to use a 3rd party client library. This is > IMHO good strategy - you are not philosophically tied to a specific > 3rd party product, but are defining an API > > Advantage: If the Gwt-X api can remain mostly unchanged - except > adapter classes to switch between Ext and Smart-client - then Ext or > Smart Client will have little leverage over the Gwt-Ext developers who > may be caught in a bind right now. > > There are several examples - for example Rogue Wave's DBTools in the > 1990s allowed you to switch databases transparently without much > effect on client code. > (you may have to redesign from scratch the present Gwt-ext api to be > generic). > > Just my 2 cents. > - > Anil --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT-Ext Developer Forum" 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/gwt-ext?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
