My bad, didn't notice this Editor thing. That's better than nothing but very javaish and static, I prefer the way Flex handles data binding : simple, flexible and usable : In Flex : <mx:Binding source="firstnameTF.text" destination="anActor.firstname"/> (you would however not code this as it's generated for you from annotations) I'm no expert in Cappucino or Cocoa but that would be similar.
In fact, this RequestFactory seems interesting, thanks for the tip ! Cheers Alex Le 13 mars 2011 à 22:10, John Huss a écrit : > GWT DOES have data binding; that is what I was saying. See here: > > "The GWT Editor framework allows data stored in an object graph to be mapped > onto a graph of Editors. The typical scenario is wiring objects returned from > an RPC mechanism into a UI." -- from > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideUiEditors.html > > For Data Access, something kind of sort ok like EOF, they have the > "RequestFactory" thing: > > "RequestFactory is an alternative to GWT-RPC for creating data-oriented > services. RequestFactory and its related interfaces (RequestContext and > EntityProxy) make it easy to build data-oriented (CRUD) apps with an ORM-like > interface on the client. It is designed to be used with an ORM layer like JDO > or JPA on the server, although this is not required." -- from > http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/latest/DevGuideRequestFactory.html > > This likely can be made to work with EOF. > > With these additions last year, I don't see any big pieces missing from GWT. > > John > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Alexis Tual <[email protected]> wrote: > I tend to agree but GWT lacks WO (or Cocoa) architectural goodness that makes > us write maintainable and internally beautiful apps. > For example, they did not integrate MVC support from the start (because you > know, it's a toolkit not a framework...), they added stuff to lead you to > eventually implement "MVP". > And as you said, it has no data binding support (some libraries provide > some). It has "Outlet" support though. > If you can give up Java and html, Flex seems a reasonable choice. > Also Cappucino 0.9 is out and becomes very sexy with full binding support as > we know it. > > Just my 2 ct > > > Le 13 mars 2011 à 04:43, John Huss a écrit : > > > GWT is a great choice for a few reasons: > > 1) extremely robust since Google actively uses it and ensures it > > 2) it's java, not JavaScript so you don't really have to know JS and you > > get all the advantages if Java development including your experience and > > knowledge > > 3) the compilation process enables all kinds of optimizations that would > > otherwise be impossible. > > 4) it's open source and available now, unlike guiandia > > 5) it has a great development trajectory with significant new features > > being added each release > > 6) It has HTML / XML templating for the UI > > 7) The data access / binding support can probably be integrated with WO to > > have something like EOF in the browser. > > > > I highly doubt that the will ever be another release of WO or Guiandia, and > > that's not a terrible thing because great work is being done in Wonder. > > And GWT or other Ajax frameworks are just as good as Guiandia and they can > > actually be used today. _______________________________________________ > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/alexis.tual%40gmail.com > > > > This email sent to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
