OFBiz-GWT Projects for bulding user interface with GWT

[Chatree Srichart]

Hi, all

    I need to OFBiz has optional UI widget. I created project for using GWT
widget in OFBiz screen if it possible. This project is at google code,
ofbiz-gwt <http://code.google.com/p/ofbiz-gwt/>. The main idea is a UiBinder
feature in GWT 2.0.

Welcome to join with me!

Regards,

Chatree Srichart

[chris snow]

Hi Chatree,

Do you intend to make GWT an option for rendering the ofbiz screen and form definitions?

Many thanks,

Chris

[Tim Ruppert]

Man I hope not!  That's one of the reasons that ever working with OpenTaps sucks.  If someone wants to do that, please put it somewhere where most of us don't have to get it so that we can continue to develop in a cleaner environment.  This is a huge one that would need to be discussed before it got dumped in IMO.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:58 PM, chris snow wrote:

>
> Hi Chatree,
>
> Do you intend to make GWT an option for rendering the ofbiz screen and form
> definitions?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Chris
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-GWT-tp1570621p1588182.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[chris snow]

Hi Tim,

Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end user usability?

One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount of time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages using prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but not with prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my pain).

Cheers,

Chris

[Tim Ruppert]

The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the system, etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very usage for anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We use prototype and the tools around - but we've got people who throw that stuff around pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going the GWT route - so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular usage for as long as possible.

Cheers,
Ruppert
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595

On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:

>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end user
> usability?
>
> One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount of
> time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages using
> prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but not with
> prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my pain).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-GWT-tp1570621p1588195.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Ean Schuessler]

Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Man I hope not!  That's one of the reasons that ever working with OpenTaps sucks.  If someone wants to do that, please put it somewhere where most of us don't have to get it so that we can continue to develop in a cleaner environment.  This is a huge one that would need to be discussed before it got dumped in IMO.
>  
I don't know about that so much. On Google Maps, Gmail and Google Wave
it seems like GWT isn't sucking too much. I've used it myself and its
pixel-perfect identical behavior on Firefox, Safari and IE (going back
to 6) made me giggle with childish delight. The environment completely
isolates you from the peculiarities of each browsers Javascript
execution environment and HTML rendering stack. Those are significant
benefits.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
[hidden email]
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com

[Tim Ruppert]

On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Man I hope not!  That's one of the reasons that ever working with OpenTaps sucks.  If someone wants to do that, please put it somewhere where most of us don't have to get it so that we can continue to develop in a cleaner environment.  This is a huge one that would need to be discussed before it got dumped in IMO.
>>  
> I don't know about that so much. On Google Maps, Gmail and Google Wave it seems like GWT isn't sucking too much. I've used it myself and its pixel-perfect identical behavior on Firefox, Safari and IE (going back to 6) made me giggle with childish delight. The environment completely isolates you from the peculiarities of each browsers Javascript execution environment and HTML rendering stack. Those are significant benefits.

You are definitely right on all of those points my friend.  Now download OpenTaps and start playing with it and let me know if you come away with the same impression.  I've used it outside of OT and have found it to be nice in small doses - the real question becomes how does it make it's way into OFBiz and how does it get utilized.  I'd love to see a POC on it to see if it's gotten a ton better - but I have to admit to having a risky sour taste in my mouth from the last time I spent with it.

> --
> Ean Schuessler, CTO
> [hidden email]
> 214-720-0700 x 315
> Brainfood, Inc.
> http://www.brainfood.com
>

[Scott Gray-2]

On 10/03/2010, at 6:44 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> Man I hope not!  That's one of the reasons that ever working with OpenTaps sucks.  If someone wants to do that, please put it somewhere where most of us don't have to get it so that we can continue to develop in a cleaner environment.  This is a huge one that would need to be discussed before it got dumped in IMO.
>>  
> I don't know about that so much. On Google Maps, Gmail and Google Wave it seems like GWT isn't sucking too much. I've used it myself and its pixel-perfect identical behavior on Firefox, Safari and IE (going back to 6) made me giggle with childish delight. The environment completely isolates you from the peculiarities of each browsers Javascript execution environment and HTML rendering stack. Those are significant benefits.

I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.

[Ean Schuessler]

----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
> I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.

That's weird. If you google "gwt" the summary record in the google results says " Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers". Looking further, however, I see several other people saying definitively that Gmail is not GWT. The GWT page says some definitive things about what *is* written in GWT (Wave, AdWords) but not so much about what is *not*. Google should do something about that nasty disinformation.

I also have genuinely used and experienced the portability of GWT and it is quite real. I know I also saw an interview with the Rasmussen Brothers where they went off about how much porting effort GWT saved them on Google Wave and they were the guys who wrote Google Maps. I'm now curious to read a straight answer on where Google is actually using it.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO Brainfood.com
[hidden email] - http://www.brainfood.com - 214-720-0700 x 315

[Scott Gray-2]

On 10/03/2010, at 11:33 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> ----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
>> I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.
>
> That's weird. If you google "gwt" the summary record in the google results says " Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers". Looking further, however, I see several other people saying definitively that Gmail is not GWT. The GWT page says some definitive things about what *is* written in GWT (Wave, AdWords) but not so much about what is *not*. Google should do something about that nasty disinformation.
>
> I also have genuinely used and experienced the portability of GWT and it is quite real. I know I also saw an interview with the Rasmussen Brothers where they went off about how much porting effort GWT saved them on Google Wave and they were the guys who wrote Google Maps. I'm now curious to read a straight answer on where Google is actually using it.

Just to clarify I don't know anywhere near enough about GWT to make a comment, except to say that when I had to do some work on opentaps it took forever to compile and I regularly got the "A script in this page is taking a long time to load, would you like to abort?" warning from the browser.  I didn't actually deal with any GWT code.

As always there are a million great libraries but until some analysis is done we'll never find the one that might remove the UI framework burden from OFBiz.  For example, I think Apache Cocoon has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't start a thread about it until I could justify why it might be a good fit for what OFBiz needs (not criticizing anyone who does that, it's just seems to never come to anything).

Regards
Scott

[Adam Heath-2]

Scott Gray wrote:

> On 10/03/2010, at 11:33 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
>> ----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
>>> I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.
>> That's weird. If you google "gwt" the summary record in the google results says " Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers". Looking further, however, I see several other people saying definitively that Gmail is not GWT. The GWT page says some definitive things about what *is* written in GWT (Wave, AdWords) but not so much about what is *not*. Google should do something about that nasty disinformation.
>>
>> I also have genuinely used and experienced the portability of GWT and it is quite real. I know I also saw an interview with the Rasmussen Brothers where they went off about how much porting effort GWT saved them on Google Wave and they were the guys who wrote Google Maps. I'm now curious to read a straight answer on where Google is actually using it.
>
> Just to clarify I don't know anywhere near enough about GWT to make a comment, except to say that when I had to do some work on opentaps it took forever to compile and I regularly got the "A script in this page is taking a long time to load, would you like to abort?" warning from the browser.  I didn't actually deal with any GWT code.
>
> As always there are a million great libraries but until some analysis is done we'll never find the one that might remove the UI framework burden from OFBiz.  For example, I think Apache Cocoon has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't start a thread about it until I could justify why it might be a good fit for what OFBiz needs (not criticizing anyone who does that, it's just seems to never come to anything).

Just for reference, websites produced by brainfood are using gwt, but
in a *very* limited fashion.

We have a feature that allows partial page loads, using ajax history.
   GWT is used to manage this.  GWT is what registers listeners on all
<a> in a page.  GWT is what is used to manage the browser history,
using "#foo" as part of the url in the location bar.

However, we've configured GWT to call back into normal javascript; our
own ajax server calls.  GWT is only used to manage clicks on <a> and
history mutation events.  The rest of the support is in hand-written
javascript, based on jquery.

However, even this doesn't fully explain it.  We wrote a GWT->jquery
wrapper, so that when GWT needs to find all the <a> to install it's
listener, it is actually calling into the native jquery library to do so.

GWT is fine.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 10/03/2010, at 11:33 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>
>> ----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
>>> I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.
>>
>> That's weird. If you google "gwt" the summary record in the google results says " Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers". Looking further, however, I see several other people saying definitively that Gmail is not GWT. The GWT page says some definitive things about what *is* written in GWT (Wave, AdWords) but not so much about what is *not*. Google should do something about that nasty disinformation.
>>
>> I also have genuinely used and experienced the portability of GWT and it is quite real. I know I also saw an interview with the Rasmussen Brothers where they went off about how much porting effort GWT saved them on Google Wave and they were the guys who wrote Google Maps. I'm now curious to read a straight answer on where Google is actually using it.
>
> Just to clarify I don't know anywhere near enough about GWT to make a comment, except to say that when I had to do some work on opentaps it took forever to compile and I regularly got the "A script in this page is taking a long time to load, would you like to abort?" warning from the browser.  I didn't actually deal with any GWT code.

This is an interesting perspective. Is it possible that this is caused by the way opentaps uses GWT and that using it in better ways might produce a better developer and user experience (like precompiled parameterized widgets, so that there is a single set of GWT classes shared by all screens/forms/etc)?

> As always there are a million great libraries but until some analysis is done we'll never find the one that might remove the UI framework burden from OFBiz.  For example, I think Apache Cocoon has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't start a thread about it until I could justify why it might be a good fit for what OFBiz needs (not criticizing anyone who does that, it's just seems to never come to anything).

You're gonna love the set of threads I just started! ;) I've been thinking about doing these for a while now and decided to just go for it and see what happens...

-David

[Abdullah Shaikh]

Yes, OpenTaps takes hours to compile because of the gwt modules in it. And
the other thing is GWT application itself  shoud be a single project but
incase of OpenTaps there are multiple applications embeded in pages to
provided different functionalities, but I guess that is fine, bcoz hoing by
how GWT works we can't create a single monolithic application which can
provided all of ofbiz as it will be a huge task.

GWT is a client side application which stores the data on client but ofbiz
makes use of server to store data, we make use of session, request
parameters, request attributes in ofbiz.

Although using GWT will minimise the load on server as the state is
maintained on client side and only required data is fetched.

There are 2 options :

1) Make the whole of ofbiz in GWT (huge task)
2) Make use of other ajax toolkits (jquery etc), to provided ajax features,
and not by using GWT as done by OpenTaps, as it takes hours to compile

I feel 2 option will be good.

Also there is a issue of SOP (Same Origin Policy), which restricts the
browser from making request to other servers and even to the same server
using different port, and this will restrict us in switching between http &
https which we currently do in ofbiz so easily

SOP - http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit-doc-1-5/wiki/FAQ_SOP

There is a way to avoid this by using JSONP, but I don't have much idea on
it.

As Chris asked, "Do you intend to make GWT an option for rendering the ofbiz
screen and form
definitions?"

I guess this won't be possible becoz the java code is converted to
javascript which gets rendered in browser, making use of ofbiz screen and
form widgets which run on server side won't work.

Google Maps & GMail doesn't use GWT but Google Wave, Google Adwords & Speed
Tracer (a tool to profile GWT applicatios) makes use of GWT

Thanks,
Abdullah

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Man I hope not!  That's one of the reasons that ever working with OpenTaps
> sucks.  If someone wants to do that, please put it somewhere where most of
> us don't have to get it so that we can continue to develop in a cleaner
> environment.  This is a huge one that would need to be discussed before it
> got dumped in IMO.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:58 PM, chris snow wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Chatree,
> >
> > Do you intend to make GWT an option for rendering the ofbiz screen and
> form
> > definitions?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-GWT-tp1570621p1588182.html
> > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

[chris snow-2]

From the GWT FAQ
http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_DebuggingAndCompiling.html#Can_I_speed_up_the_GWT_compiler
?:

If you are compiling a large application, you may find that compiling to web
mode takes a long time. One issue is that the compiler actually builds
several versions of your application based on client properties for locale
and browser. For deployment, this is crucial, but for everyday development,
you are probably only using a single browser and locale. If that is the
case, then you can take a shortcut and compile only a single permutation
during the development cycle.

I don't know if OpenTaps are doing this development optimisation.

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Tim Ruppert
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the system,
> etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very usage for
> anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We use prototype
> and the tools around - but we've got people who throw that stuff around
> pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going the GWT route -
> so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular usage for as long as
> possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruppert
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end user
> > usability?
> >
> > One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount
> of
> > time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages using
> > prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but not with
> > prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my pain).
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-GWT-tp1570621p1588195.html
> > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

[Wickersheimer Jeremy]

Yes we only compile for one browser and one locale.

Also there are various modules and only the modified modules are rebuilt although when
working on the common module this still triggers the rebuilding of all the depending
modules.

This is obviously slower than modifying the js code in-line in your page of course, but a
typical rebuild cycle in development is just a few minutes.

--
Wickersheimer Jeremy
On Friday 12 March 2010 00:06:22 chris snow wrote:

> >From the GWT FAQ
>
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_DebuggingAndCompiling.html#Ca
> n_I_speed_up_the_GWT_compiler ?:
>
> If you are compiling a large application, you may find that compiling to
> web mode takes a long time. One issue is that the compiler actually builds
> several versions of your application based on client properties for locale
> and browser. For deployment, this is crucial, but for everyday
> development, you are probably only using a single browser and locale. If
> that is the case, then you can take a shortcut and compile only a single
> permutation during the development cycle.
>
> I don't know if OpenTaps are doing this development optimisation.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Tim Ruppert
>
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
> > The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the
> > system, etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very
> > usage for anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We
> > use prototype and the tools around - but we've got people who throw that
> > stuff around pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going
> > the GWT route - so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular
> > usage for as long as possible.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ruppert
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> > On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:
> > > Hi Tim,
> > >
> > > Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end
> > > user usability?
> > >
> > > One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount
> >
> > of
> >
> > > time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages
> > > using prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but
> > > not with prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my
> > > pain).
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > --
> >
> > > View this message in context:
> > http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-G
> > WT-tp1570621p1588195.html
> >
> > > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Jacques Le Roux]

From: "Wickersheimer Jeremy" <[hidden email]>
> Yes we only compile for one browser and one locale.
>
> Also there are various modules and only the modified modules are rebuilt although when
> working on the common module this still triggers the rebuilding of all the depending
> modules.
>
> This is obviously slower than modifying the js code in-line in your page of course, but a
> typical rebuild cycle in development is just a few minutes.

Great, but mmm... few minutes is much...

Jacques
 

> --
> Wickersheimer Jeremy
> On Friday 12 March 2010 00:06:22 chris snow wrote:
>> >From the GWT FAQ
>>
>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_DebuggingAndCompiling.html#Ca
>> n_I_speed_up_the_GWT_compiler ?:
>>
>> If you are compiling a large application, you may find that compiling to
>> web mode takes a long time. One issue is that the compiler actually builds
>> several versions of your application based on client properties for locale
>> and browser. For deployment, this is crucial, but for everyday
>> development, you are probably only using a single browser and locale. If
>> that is the case, then you can take a shortcut and compile only a single
>> permutation during the development cycle.
>>
>> I don't know if OpenTaps are doing this development optimisation.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Tim Ruppert
>>
>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>> > The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the
>> > system, etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very
>> > usage for anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We
>> > use prototype and the tools around - but we've got people who throw that
>> > stuff around pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going
>> > the GWT route - so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular
>> > usage for as long as possible.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Ruppert
>> > --
>> > Tim Ruppert
>> > HotWax Media
>> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>> >
>> > o:801.649.6594
>> > f:801.649.6595
>> >
>> > On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:
>> > > Hi Tim,
>> > >
>> > > Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or end
>> > > user usability?
>> > >
>> > > One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the amount
>> >
>> > of
>> >
>> > > time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages
>> > > using prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but
>> > > not with prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my
>> > > pain).
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> > > --
>> >
>> > > View this message in context:
>> > http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-G
>> > WT-tp1570621p1588195.html
>> >
>> > > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[Wickersheimer Jeremy]

Actually on my main computer a one module build is around 20 seconds, a few minutes would
be for a full rebuild.

--
Wickersheimer Jeremy
On Friday 12 March 2010 02:02:48 Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Wickersheimer Jeremy" <[hidden email]>
>
> > Yes we only compile for one browser and one locale.
> >
> >
> >
> > Also there are various modules and only the modified modules are rebuilt
> > although when  working on the common module this still triggers the
> > rebuilding of all the depending modules.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is obviously slower than modifying the js code in-line in your page
> > of course, but a  typical rebuild cycle in development is just a few
> > minutes.
>
> Great, but mmm... few minutes is much...
>
> Jacques

[Adam Heath-2]

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> From: "Wickersheimer Jeremy" <[hidden email]>
>> Yes we only compile for one browser and one locale.
>>
>> Also there are various modules and only the modified modules are
>> rebuilt although when working on the common module this still triggers
>> the rebuilding of all the depending modules.
>>
>> This is obviously slower than modifying the js code in-line in your
>> page of course, but a typical rebuild cycle in development is just a
>> few minutes.
>
> Great, but mmm... few minutes is much...

So the integration is wrong.

==
clean checkout.
ant build
  builds java files, builds gwt
ant clean
  cleans java files
ant clean-all
  calls ant clean, and cleans gwt
==

That would keep the gwt stuff from being built all the time, wouldn't it?

[chris snow-2]

I would happy to wait an extra few minutes of compile to save a few hours of
manual javascript development ;)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: "Wickersheimer Jeremy" <[hidden email]>
>
>  Yes we only compile for one browser and one locale.
>>
>> Also there are various modules and only the modified modules are rebuilt
>> although when working on the common module this still triggers the
>> rebuilding of all the depending modules.
>>
>> This is obviously slower than modifying the js code in-line in your page
>> of course, but a typical rebuild cycle in development is just a few minutes.
>>
>
> Great, but mmm... few minutes is much...
>
> Jacques
>
>
>  --
>> Wickersheimer Jeremy
>> On Friday 12 March 2010 00:06:22 chris snow wrote:
>>
>>> >From the GWT FAQ
>>>
>>>
>>> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/doc/1.6/FAQ_DebuggingAndCompiling.html#Ca
>>> n_I_speed_up_the_GWT_compiler ?:
>>>
>>> If you are compiling a large application, you may find that compiling to
>>> web mode takes a long time. One issue is that the compiler actually
>>> builds
>>> several versions of your application based on client properties for
>>> locale
>>> and browser. For deployment, this is crucial, but for everyday
>>> development, you are probably only using a single browser and locale. If
>>> that is the case, then you can take a shortcut and compile only a single
>>> permutation during the development cycle.
>>>
>>> I don't know if OpenTaps are doing this development optimisation.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Tim Ruppert
>>>
>>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>> > The compilation steps, the model of usage, the weight it put on the
>>> > system, etc, etc - in fact I can only say that I don't think it's very
>>> > usage for anyone - although it does have some pretty slick tools.  We
>>> > use prototype and the tools around - but we've got people who throw
>>> that
>>> > stuff around pretty easily.  I would prefer not to be forced into going
>>> > the GWT route - so what I was saying, is let's keep it out of regular
>>> > usage for as long as possible.
>>> > > Cheers,
>>> > Ruppert
>>> > --
>>> > Tim Ruppert
>>> > HotWax Media
>>> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>>> > > o:801.649.6594
>>> > f:801.649.6595
>>> > > On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:13 PM, chris snow wrote:
>>> > > Hi Tim,
>>> > > > > Just out of interest, which bits suck with GWT - developing, or
>>> end
>>> > > user usability?
>>> > > > > One reason that got me interested in using GWT with ofbiz is the
>>> amount
>>> > > of
>>> > > > time that it took to add some interactivity to some of my ftl pages
>>> > > using prototype.  (I have some previous experience with jQuery, but
>>> > > not with prototype, so learning curve was a moderately big part of my
>>> > > pain).
>>> > > > > Cheers,
>>> > > > > Chris
>>> > > --
>>> > > > View this message in context:
>>> >
>>> http://n4.nabble.com/OFBiz-GWT-Projects-for-bulding-user-interface-with-G
>>> > WT-tp1570621p1588195.html
>>> > > > Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

On 11/03/2010, at 12:42 AM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 10/03/2010, at 11:33 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
>>
>>> ----- "Scott Gray" wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure about Google Maps but gmail doesn't use GWT.
>>>
>>> That's weird. If you google "gwt" the summary record in the google results says " Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers". Looking further, however, I see several other people saying definitively that Gmail is not GWT. The GWT page says some definitive things about what *is* written in GWT (Wave, AdWords) but not so much about what is *not*. Google should do something about that nasty disinformation.
>>>
>>> I also have genuinely used and experienced the portability of GWT and it is quite real. I know I also saw an interview with the Rasmussen Brothers where they went off about how much porting effort GWT saved them on Google Wave and they were the guys who wrote Google Maps. I'm now curious to read a straight answer on where Google is actually using it.
>>
>> Just to clarify I don't know anywhere near enough about GWT to make a comment, except to say that when I had to do some work on opentaps it took forever to compile and I regularly got the "A script in this page is taking a long time to load, would you like to abort?" warning from the browser.  I didn't actually deal with any GWT code.
>
> This is an interesting perspective. Is it possible that this is caused by the way opentaps uses GWT and that using it in better ways might produce a better developer and user experience (like precompiled parameterized widgets, so that there is a single set of GWT classes shared by all screens/forms/etc)?

That is certainly a possibility, as I mentioned I don't know enough about GWT to comment.

>> As always there are a million great libraries but until some analysis is done we'll never find the one that might remove the UI framework burden from OFBiz.  For example, I think Apache Cocoon has some interesting ideas but I wouldn't start a thread about it until I could justify why it might be a good fit for what OFBiz needs (not criticizing anyone who does that, it's just seems to never come to anything).
>
> You're gonna love the set of threads I just started! ;) I've been thinking about doing these for a while now and decided to just go for it and see what happens...

Since you are virtually without a doubt the person with the most experience using OFBiz, I'm actually more interested in how you would answer the questions you've posed rather than the opinions of the people who are most likely to comment.  But yes, I am certainly interested in what comes out of those threads and what you intend on doing with the responses you receive.

Regards
Scott