This sounds very much like Wicket. When we were evaluating frameworks to
use, about 2.5 years ago, to update our app it boiled down to Wicket and
GWT. Wicket had the advantage that it allowed designers and coders to work
better together (markup and code in separate source files). GWT won out
I think this is very important feature. We are using UIBinder extensively
and we think it is a great step forward in therm of declarative design,
however it is still hard to use and produce XML's by our UI designers.
The best template engine I've ever seen for UI designers is Thymeleaf and
Since Google officially is dropping IE9 for their Apps services, does that
help move the needle to IE10+ for GWT 3.0?
http://googleappsupdates.blogspot.com/2013/11/end-of-support-for-internet-explorer-9.html
Sincerely,
Joseph
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
Since Google officially is dropping IE9 for their Apps services, does that
help move the needle to IE10+ for GWT 3.0?
http://googleappsupdates.blogspot.com/2013/11/end-of-support-for-internet-explorer-9.html
The only reason supporting IE 9 is that Windows Vista is still supported by
MS
Hi Colin,
We are very excited about GWT3, with so many planned enhancements and
improvements, can't wait.
In terms of sencha GXT4 road map for web and tablets, I couldn't resist
asking the question on the road map:
will GXT4 be based on GWT3 with HTML like design with its possible
Are other source languages than Java taken into account for GWT 3.0? Is
Jribble considered?
- Andrés Testi
El viernes, 25 de octubre de 2013 13:18:52 UTC-3, Thomas Broyer escribió:
Forwarded from the GWT group, so it's not lost in the middle of support
questions.
Link to the topic
If IE7support is removed from GWT, will GWT run correctly on IE in
Intranet? (IE will default to IE7 Browser mode for Intranet Website)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On Monday, October 28, 2013 4:22:29 PM UTC+1, Chak Lai wrote:
If IE7support is removed from GWT, will GWT run correctly on IE in
Intranet? (IE will default to IE7 Browser mode for Intranet Website)
Include the correct meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compat in the HTML?
A Google search led me to
We've found experimentally that the meta tag has no effect on IE8 when in
intranet mode. We've further found that it does seem to respect the http
header, which could be set in a filter like this:
public class LatestIEFilter implements Filter {
@Override
public void doFilter(ServletRequest
In Intranet environment, that META tag can only change IE Document Mode
(such as how IE layout the web page), but it cannot change IE Browser Mode
(such as IE's JavaScript Engine). It is because the Browser Mode is loaded
(Intranet is detected) before IE parse the HTML.
Even with the meta
In Intranet environment, that META tag can only change IE Document Mode
(such as how IE layout the web page), but it cannot change IE Browser Mode
(such as IE's JavaScript Engine). It is because the Browser Mode is loaded
(Intranet is detected) before IE parse the HTML.
Even with the
On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Jens wrote:
In Intranet environment, that META tag can only change IE Document Mode
(such as how IE layout the web page), but it cannot change IE Browser Mode
(such as IE's JavaScript Engine). It is because the Browser Mode is loaded
Chak, take a look again at my post - while the meta tag definitely does not
work to tell IE8 to behave when in intranet mode, loading the exact same
html content and sending the same ua-compat details over a HTTP header
*does* solve this.
On Monday, October 28, 2013 3:08:47 PM UTC-5, Chak Lai
I have tried your filter, and the IE Browser Mode has changed, however:
For IE8, I got Internet Explorer 8 Compatibility View, and the user agent
is:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET
CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center
Ray, sounds fantastic and can happily say that something along those lines
would tackle many of the issues with GWT I noted in the current GWT survey.
Will be eagerly awaiting the design docs and proposals.
On 26 October 2013 00:06, Ed post2edb...@gmail.com wrote:
We're thinking about
Hi Ray,
Sounds good to me. Just a few questions on this approach:
- Will we be able to mix old and new style or will it be all-in or out ?
Being able to mix is quite important in a big application since we need to
add new functionality but we don't want to rewrite the old stuff, that is
fully
Hi,
No, I am not using an abstract class, I just defined a one method interface
(or you could reuse something in Guava or Java) and I am using a decorator
approach to add error handling or modality in case we want to block the UI
when an RPC call is happening. So you basically start with
I just read through the notes from the GWT steering
committeehttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/gwt-steering/ldyo7OXUnHQ/ogtT-kPFoaoJand
would like to share our perspective. I know you have a lot of survey
results and we're just 1 company, but here's some more info based on our
needs.
*Java 8
there should be simply no frameworks which support anything below ie9 at
all, so the enterprise is forced to adjust :)
2013/10/25 Andy pula...@gmail.com
I just read through the notes from the GWT steering
committeehttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/gwt-steering/ldyo7OXUnHQ/ogtT-kPFoaoJand
IE8/IE9 I agree, we are in the same situation. Our customers only just
migrated to IE8, so that will take at least 2 years before they will move
on.
We could wait longer to move on to GWT 3.0, but the problem is that other
customers are already asking for IE11 support.
About Java8 support on the
Thanks for your input. It sounds like we're in the identical situation.
Regarding onFailure, do you use an abstract implementation of
AsyncCallback, like I mention in this post?
http://stackoverflow.com/a/4725052/497700
-Andy
On Friday, October 25, 2013 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, stuckagain wrote:
I think what we're really thinking about doing is preserving IE8 for the
existing gwt widget stuff, but any features (APIs) we add going forward are
going to leverage modern browser stuff, and we are not going to design
(poorly performing, hacky) fallback/polyfill workarounds.
For GWT 3.0,
Ray,
There is already two existing versions of most container components. Are you
stating GWT will introduce a third? Or just migrate the Layout ones?
In addition, do you know if there will be significant changes to UiBinder?
Tim
On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Ray Cromwell cromwell...@google.com
Thanks Ray, I appreciate the detailed response.
We do most of our rendering server-side and use very few widgets, so it
sounds like we'll be fine. We don't use any panels other than FlowPanel and
we use simple widgets like Hyperlink and CheckBox with a few cases of
SuggestBox and our own
We're thinking about introducing a way of developing UI that is more like
traditional HTML design, you create HTML, CSS, and then attach behavior via
Java. UiBinder is sort of like this, but it is not HTML and still requires
building. What we want to do is follow the Web Components spec, which
We're thinking about introducing a way of developing UI that is more like
traditional HTML design, you create HTML, CSS, and then attach behavior via
Java. UiBinder is sort of like this, but it is not
Can't wait ... Would love seeing this...
I feel the pain: a company abroad makes the
Forwarded from the GWT group, so it's not lost in the middle of support
questions.
Link to the topic (there's some feedback there as
well):
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-web-toolkit/Ll0W3Ui1CAI/discussion
On Friday, October 25, 2013 4:50:38 PM UTC+2, Andy wrote:
I just read
27 matches
Mail list logo
