I see, thank you.
--- David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply that this is not what GWT is designed for. It is designed to
> be
> a compile time facility, which generates a downloadable application
> expressed in javascript. It takes too long (say 10 seconds) to
> compile
> the java to have that as part of a web transaction.
>
> David
>
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 10:32, Chris Howe wrote:
> > What is preventing it from being done on the fly?
> >
> > --- David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One important thing about what I am proposing is that the xsl
> > > transform
> > > happens on the UI definition, NOT on the HTML that would have
> been
> > > displayed. And that xsl transform is done once when the code is
> > > built,
> > > it is not done on the fly which is what I take a renderer to
> mean.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:13, Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > Not a renderer for javascript, a renderer for GWT or a renderer
> for
> > > > Echo2 or for one of the xml based engines. It would transform
> the
> > > > screen definition into what is expected of the engine. The one
> > >
> > > you're
> > >
> > > > most used to is the one that transforms the screen definition
> into
> > > > html. It's very similar to what David G. is talking about with
> an
> > >
> > > xsl
> > >
> > > > transformation but using the methodology that Ofbiz uses by
> > >
> > > abstracting
> > >
> > > > it out to the renderer.
> >
> >
>
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/framework/widget/src/org/ofbiz/wid
> >
> > > >get/
> > > >
> > > > I don't have my head wrapped completely around where one part
> > >
> > > begins or
> > >
> > > > ends, but David J. or Jacopo might be able to add some insight.
> My
> > > > reply to David G. was a question, not an interrogative
> statement.
> > > >
> > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > A renderer for javascript? Currently, the "renderer" I'm
> using is
> > > > > merely Freemarker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathon
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Howe wrote:
> > > > > > In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to
> > >
> > > create
> > >
> > > > > a
> > > > >
> > > > > > renderer for it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > >> Tim,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with
> the
> > > > >
> > > > > HTML".
> > > > >
> > > > > >> As you never (or should never) write any HTML as part of
> the
> > >
> > > GWT
> > >
> > > > > code
> > > > >
> > > > > >> this makes no sense. Yes the GWT controls are mapped to
> HTML,
> > >
> > > but
> > >
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> can make your own controls quite easily, and integrate
> them
> > >
> > > into
> > >
> > > > > the
> > > > >
> > > > > >> GWT framework so you are not limited to what simple HTML
> > >
> > > widgets
> > >
> > > > > can
> > > > >
> > > > > >> do.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But I am merely a bystander when it comes to OfBiz, so it
> is
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > > > > >> others
> > > > > >> to decide. What I was reacting to was the thought that
> > >
> > > getting
> > >
> > > > > >> Javascript
> > > > > >> expertise into OfBiz might be difficult, and so doing
> things
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > > > Java
> > > > >
> > > > > >> makes
> > > > > >> a lot of sense. Personally I find Javascript to be a
> > >
> > > problematic
> > >
> > > > > >> language,
> > > > > >> it is very powerful, almost too powerful - you can almost
> > >
> > > redefine
> > >
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> language as you go along - but being interpreted and not
> type
> > >
> > > safe
> > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> way that Java is makes it a much more difficult language
> to
> > >
> > > use
> > >
> > > > > well.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> David
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 14:39, Tim Ruppert wrote:
> > > > > >>> David, we did a number of pilots with GWT (and other
> > >
> > > frameworks)
> > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> OFBiz and were much happier with the dojo toolkit. The
> GWT,
> > > > >
> > > > > while
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> having the bonus of being able to do everything in java,
> also
> > > > > >>> required a bit more of a tight coupling with the HTML -
> which
> > >
> > > in
> > >
> > > > > my
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> mind - made it less desirable.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> JSON is there in case you can show us all a better way of
> > > > >
> > > > > handling
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> it! Hope that helps.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Cheers,
> > > > > >>> Tim
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Tim Ruppert
> > > > > >>> HotWax Media
> > > > > >>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> o:801.649.6594
> > > > > >>> f:801.649.6595
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:06 AM, David Goodenough wrote:
>
=== message truncated ===
