Re: [gwt-contrib] The elusive J2CL

['Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors]

> There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience
but at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.

What I meant here; is giving access *after* basic bazel stuff is finished
so there will be something to play with. We don't want to give access to a
broader group for something that is dead on arrival.


On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 5:31 AM Alberto Mancini  wrote:

> Hello,
> yes, definitely I would like to be in.
> I am really interested.
>
> Cheers,
>Alberto.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:21 PM Nándor Előd Fekete 
> wrote:
>
>> I am *really* interested. Can you sign me up?
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:13:01 AM UTC+1, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
>>>
>>> The main blocker for releasing J2CL for wider audience is even basic
>>> missing functionalities around building it in open-source and seeing at
>>> least some output for your compilations. That is blocked on missing
>>> functionalities in bazel. After that we can probably finished in more
>>> timely manner.
>>> There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience
>>> but at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "GWT Contributors" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/8de62b64-4bc8-4158-80d4-b15ef688f523%40googlegroups.com
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAGv30V%3DfWDpwQ45u9mPVuXY%3D62PJZ%2B9uxearZk5Lq_a0j2yjaA%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAN%3DyUA0mSV_9YZriXJgyd5qQEOvo8Sc9-sjr7i1QWvkCs16mCA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] The elusive J2CL

[Alberto Mancini]

Hello,
yes, definitely I would like to be in.
I am really interested.

Cheers,
   Alberto.


On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 2:21 PM Nándor Előd Fekete 
wrote:

> I am *really* interested. Can you sign me up?
>
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:13:01 AM UTC+1, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
>>
>> The main blocker for releasing J2CL for wider audience is even basic
>> missing functionalities around building it in open-source and seeing at
>> least some output for your compilations. That is blocked on missing
>> functionalities in bazel. After that we can probably finished in more
>> timely manner.
>> There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience
>> but at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/8de62b64-4bc8-4158-80d4-b15ef688f523%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/CAGv30V%3DfWDpwQ45u9mPVuXY%3D62PJZ%2B9uxearZk5Lq_a0j2yjaA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] The elusive J2CL

[Nándor Előd Fekete]

I am *really* interested. Can you sign me up?

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:13:01 AM UTC+1, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
>
> The main blocker for releasing J2CL for wider audience is even basic 
> missing functionalities around building it in open-source and seeing at 
> least some output for your compilations. That is blocked on missing 
> functionalities in bazel. After that we can probably finished in more 
> timely manner.
> There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience 
> but at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT 
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/8de62b64-4bc8-4158-80d4-b15ef688f523%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gwt-contrib] The elusive J2CL

[Ivan Markov]

Goktug,

We don't want a polished experience. We want *some* experience. :)

Is there anything we can help with? BTW, I thought Bazel is already open 
sourced and you are already building with it? What's the roadblock there?

BTW 2: Releasing a J2CL binary would also help, as long as that's somehow 
legally possible.


On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:13:01 AM UTC+2, Goktug Gokdogan wrote:
>
> The main blocker for releasing J2CL for wider audience is even basic 
> missing functionalities around building it in open-source and seeing at 
> least some output for your compilations. That is blocked on missing 
> functionalities in bazel. After that we can probably finished in more 
> timely manner.
> There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience 
> but at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:43 PM Ivan Markov  > wrote:
>
>> I posted my message (OK. My rant!) here, because I wanted to get the 
>> attention of Goktug, Daniel & the rest of  the Google crew. It is a plea to 
>> change something ASAP, and if someone could, it is them.
>>
>> As for the rest of your comments... don't know where to start. Most 
>> important is, you seem to imply that using J2CL will resurrect something 
>> similar to the old legacy development mode. That couldn't be farther from 
>> the truth - I suggest you check the available (scarce) info on J2CL. Also: 
>> with the new compiler toolchain we (should) have even faster compiles. "We 
>> should" because it is not available anywhere, so we can't play with it. We 
>> are currently in the 5 to 10 seconds of recompile time with GWT, and I want 
>> this down to 2 seconds. I want Webpack all the way down, also for my Java 
>> code. With HMR. With HMR + react-hot-loader. Maybe that's possible with the 
>> GWT toolchain, but I'm not holding my breath...
>>
>> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:17:28 AM UTC+2, Tony BenBrahim wrote:
>>>
>>> I am perfectly happy with Java/JsInterop in its current state. Sure 
>>> there are some things that could be improved, but what couldn't. BTW, I 
>>> have never used the GWT widgets, so my case may be different. I tried TS, 
>>> Angular, etc..., and have come back to GWT with JsInterop to deal with 
>>> large projects. Porting a largish Angular/Typescript project back to GWT 
>>> with JsInterop, I found several bugs, because Typescript gives the illusion 
>>> of types and "type checking", while GWT does real type checking.
>>> Put me in the camp that does not care if J2CL ever comes out. I want 
>>> fast compiles, especially in dev mode, anything that threatens that with a 
>>> 2 step compile is of no interest to me. I am also not interested in 
>>> anything that would compile differently in dev mode than in production mode 
>>> in the interest of fast compiles, we have been down that road before with 
>>> the legacy development mode, and when something worked in dev mode but not 
>>> in prod mode, it was not fun to fix.
>>> Anyways, I am quite sure this does not belong in this group, so let's 
>>> continue the discussion in the main GWT group
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Ivan Markov  wrote:
>>>
 This time I'll bite...

 J2CL has been - what? - two to three years in the making - yet, there 
 is nothing released to the public yet (aside from a preview to a few 
 blessed individuals).

 Before someone follows up again with the usual matra that "it is not 
 production ready yet and it will do more harm than good" or "somebody is 
 porting the GWT widgets to J2CL as without these J2CL would be unusable" 
 let's ask ourselves: *are these statements holding any ground anymore*?

 Here's a situation which is very likely not typical to just us: 
 We have to - like NOW - start replacing - in our app - all the dying 
 GWT widget-set/RPC legacy with a maintained and more contemporary toolkit 
 (React, Angular2, whatever).

 (And please let's not argue over whether the GWT widget-set is still an 
 option for any new development. For us it is not. Also let's not argue if 
 coding against JavaScript libs with the existing GWT compiler toolchain is 
 a viable option in the long term - it is obviously not.)

 The question: shall we scrap GWT altogether and rewrite in JS/TS? Or 
 shall we continue with Java/JSInterop?

 Now, please enlighten me how we can defend the option of continuing in 
 Java/JSInterop - even in front of ourselves - given that 3 years from the 
 initial announcement - J2CL is still just smoke and mirrors for almost all 
 Google outsiders?  We can't play with it to gain some confidence that it 
 will work for us.. Also what happens if Google changes their mind and 
 decides not to release it - say - due to legal issues? We would be stuck 
 with an all-new Java/JSInterop code still bound to the 

Re: [gwt-contrib] The elusive J2CL

['Goktug Gokdogan' via GWT Contributors]

The main blocker for releasing J2CL for wider audience is even basic
missing functionalities around building it in open-source and seeing at
least some output for your compilations. That is blocked on missing
functionalities in bazel. After that we can probably finished in more
timely manner.
There is still tone of work to do for a polished open source experience but
at least we can give access to more people who is really interested.



On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:43 PM Ivan Markov  wrote:

> I posted my message (OK. My rant!) here, because I wanted to get the
> attention of Goktug, Daniel & the rest of  the Google crew. It is a plea to
> change something ASAP, and if someone could, it is them.
>
> As for the rest of your comments... don't know where to start. Most
> important is, you seem to imply that using J2CL will resurrect something
> similar to the old legacy development mode. That couldn't be farther from
> the truth - I suggest you check the available (scarce) info on J2CL. Also:
> with the new compiler toolchain we (should) have even faster compiles. "We
> should" because it is not available anywhere, so we can't play with it. We
> are currently in the 5 to 10 seconds of recompile time with GWT, and I want
> this down to 2 seconds. I want Webpack all the way down, also for my Java
> code. With HMR. With HMR + react-hot-loader. Maybe that's possible with the
> GWT toolchain, but I'm not holding my breath...
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:17:28 AM UTC+2, Tony BenBrahim wrote:
>>
>> I am perfectly happy with Java/JsInterop in its current state. Sure there
>> are some things that could be improved, but what couldn't. BTW, I have
>> never used the GWT widgets, so my case may be different. I tried TS,
>> Angular, etc..., and have come back to GWT with JsInterop to deal with
>> large projects. Porting a largish Angular/Typescript project back to GWT
>> with JsInterop, I found several bugs, because Typescript gives the illusion
>> of types and "type checking", while GWT does real type checking.
>> Put me in the camp that does not care if J2CL ever comes out. I want fast
>> compiles, especially in dev mode, anything that threatens that with a 2
>> step compile is of no interest to me. I am also not interested in anything
>> that would compile differently in dev mode than in production mode in the
>> interest of fast compiles, we have been down that road before with the
>> legacy development mode, and when something worked in dev mode but not in
>> prod mode, it was not fun to fix.
>> Anyways, I am quite sure this does not belong in this group, so let's
>> continue the discussion in the main GWT group
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM, Ivan Markov  wrote:
>>
>>> This time I'll bite...
>>>
>>> J2CL has been - what? - two to three years in the making - yet, there is
>>> nothing released to the public yet (aside from a preview to a few blessed
>>> individuals).
>>>
>>> Before someone follows up again with the usual matra that "it is not
>>> production ready yet and it will do more harm than good" or "somebody is
>>> porting the GWT widgets to J2CL as without these J2CL would be unusable"
>>> let's ask ourselves: *are these statements holding any ground anymore*?
>>>
>>> Here's a situation which is very likely not typical to just us:
>>> We have to - like NOW - start replacing - in our app - all the dying GWT
>>> widget-set/RPC legacy with a maintained and more contemporary toolkit
>>> (React, Angular2, whatever).
>>>
>>> (And please let's not argue over whether the GWT widget-set is still an
>>> option for any new development. For us it is not. Also let's not argue if
>>> coding against JavaScript libs with the existing GWT compiler toolchain is
>>> a viable option in the long term - it is obviously not.)
>>>
>>> The question: shall we scrap GWT altogether and rewrite in JS/TS? Or
>>> shall we continue with Java/JSInterop?
>>>
>>> Now, please enlighten me how we can defend the option of continuing in
>>> Java/JSInterop - even in front of ourselves - given that 3 years from the
>>> initial announcement - J2CL is still just smoke and mirrors for almost all
>>> Google outsiders?  We can't play with it to gain some confidence that it
>>> will work for us.. Also what happens if Google changes their mind and
>>> decides not to release it - say - due to legal issues? We would be stuck
>>> with an all-new Java/JSInterop code still bound to the dying compiler
>>> toolchain of GWT. Not a situation anybody wants to end up with, I guess...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GWT Contributors" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/d9a326c6-ae1b-4577-8dd4-71d765ff547f%40googlegroups.com
>