Questions about the future of ofbiz

[jonwimp]

David,

 > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".

GWT generates its own HTML code (the events, especially). GWT also generates the javascript codes
(the event handlers). I can certainly use the generated javascript codes verbatim. But I'd have to
somehow tweak my OFBiz form/screen widgets to connect them to the javascript codes.

The problem is that GWT produces the HTML code for both events (onMouseOver, onClick, etc) and the
actual UIs (aka controls, in SWT terminology). If, instead, GWT doesn't require the use of
controls, but just simply requires the definition of events, it could be simpler to do.

As it is now, it seems I have to do 2 things:

1. Create UI/controls with GWT,

2. Create event handlers with GWT,

when I only want to do step 2.

Still, you're right that I could do my own utterly stripped down controls, since I only want to
program the event handlers and not the controls themselves.

I'll look into this GWT soon.

 > What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
 > expertise into OfBiz might be difficult,

Well, when situations create a need, we adapt. I've been doing OO Javascript for some time now, no
problems. Yes, I did go through programming language study (parser, interpreter, compiler), but I
think there are many FAQ guides on the web. Just ignore the discussions about scope and closure
(which really is quite easy to grasp, if we just sit down and try).

 > doing things in Java makes a lot of sense.

It does, since Java is a much easier language than Javascript. I felt a load come off my shoulders
when I moved from a PHP project to a Java project! I think I could've gotten stress-related health
problems if I handled PHP for much longer.

 > Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language

It is. What we can do with SWT (concurrency controls) cannot be done with Javascript. Or maybe I
just haven't figured it out yet.

Jonathon

David Goodenough 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:
>>> Jonathon,
>>>
>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
>>> would
>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
>>> possible to
>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am
>>> thinking
>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
>>> binding
>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
>>> originally
>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
>>>
>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
>>> include
>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start
>>> from
>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or
>>> desirable)
>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
>>> not looked
>>> closely enough to find out.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
>>>> Javascript
>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
>>>> translate the
>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
>>>> Java is
>>>> cool.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often
>>>> in Ajax
>>>> work with OFBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
>>>>> course
>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
>>>>> programming
>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
>>>>> all the
>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated
>>>>> into
>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
>>>>> present in
>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
>>>>> right in
>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
>>>>> JSON is
>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is
>>>>> the more
>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in
>>>>> which
>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
>>>>> but there
>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
>>>>> perfectly
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget
>>>>>> module.
>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl
>>>>>> (s).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
>>>>>> various
>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
>>>>>> Prev/Next
>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could
>>>>>> hark
>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
>>>>>> (events
>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
>>>>>> acrobatics in
>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the
>>>>>> "nice
>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
>>>>>>> wait to
>>>>>>> see the progress!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
>>>>>>>> system,
>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
>>>>>>>> We have
>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and
>>>>>>>> you can
>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
>>>>>>>> to work
>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
>>>>>>>> products,
>>>>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
>>>>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong
>>>>>>>> familiarity with
>>>>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
>>>>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,
>>>>>>>> handheld
>>>>>>>> devices, etc.
>>>>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like
>>>>>>>>> a CRM
>>>>>>>>> portion of
>>>>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and
>>>>>>>>> solid email
>>>>>>>>> client
>>>>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
>>>>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> cash. I'd
>>>>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
>>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the
>>>>>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>>>>>> and we've
>>>>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for
>>>>>>>>>>> easier
>>>>>>>>>>> use. There
>>>>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my
>>>>>>>>>>> business and
>>>>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list
>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>> likeminded
>>>>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker
>>>>>>>>>>> pace?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of
>>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If
>>>>>>>>>>> this were
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be
>>>>>>>>>>> interested,
>>>>>>>>>>> then we
>>>>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
>>>>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in
>>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz
>>>>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked
>>>>>>>>>> about,
>>>>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
>>>>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
>>>>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
>>>>>>>>>> developing different  things.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this
>>>>>>>>>> list or
>>>>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in
>>>>>>>>>> collaborating on
>>>>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at
>>>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope
>>>>>>>>>> (ie in
>>>>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks
>>>>>>>>>> worth)
>>>>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you
>>>>>>>>>> on how
>>>>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -David
>
>

[David Goodenough]

Which is exactly what GWT gives you.  The UI code in the form of a minimal
HTML file and a lump of javascript are served by the we server by run on the
client.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 05:40, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David,
>
> UI code on the client in the form of dynamically downloaded javascripts,
> yes, that's good. But not UI definitions residing on the client.
>
> That's why I can't quite use SWT (Swing, UI with Java). Hefty deployment
> costs.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David Goodenough wrote:
> > Surely that is what JSON is for.  It is just a javascript based RPC
> > mechanism.  Having the UI code on the client rather than the server
> > is a good thing, its a perfectly good of the MVC models, and it means
> > that it can be very responsive to the user and feels like a normal
> > PC application.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Tuesday 24 April 2007 18:52, BJ Freeman wrote:
> >> I have a tool that creates SWT code.
> >> the problem with JAVA based UI is that the application runs on the
> >> client not the web server. So a interface has to be written to
> >> communication with the ofbiz.
> >>
> >> Where I am going with this, is the Widgets xml is converted already in
> >> ofbiz. So I would liked to see more functionality built into the
> >> widgets, where possible, instead of having redundant functionality, in
> >> some other form.
> >>
> >> For Java UI applications, I would like to see a standard interface
> >> fleshed out for communication to Ofbiz. Then each developer can use
> >> his/her favorite UI code to build on.
> >>
> >> David Goodenough sent the following on 4/24/2007 8:24 AM:
> >>> I have not looked in detail, but given that OfBiz has an abstract
> >>> definition of the UI and the processing it should be possible to
> >>> have an xslt transform that generates a set of GWT java source that
> >>> can be compiled and then used by the browser.  Doing it dynamically
> >>> would not seem sensible, but the code only needs to be regenerated
> >>> when the UI definition changes.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 16:11, Chris Howe wrote:
> >>>> In that case, what would be the likelihood of being able to create a
> >>>> renderer for it?
> >>>>
> >>>> --- David Goodenough <[hidden email]> 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:
> >>>>>>> Jonathon,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> >>>>>
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>>>>>> possible to
> >>>>>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> >>>>>
> >>>>> am
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> thinking
> >>>>>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>>>>>> binding
> >>>>>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>>>>>> originally
> >>>>>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>>>>>> include
> >>>>>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> >>>>>
> >>>>> start
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (or
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> desirable)
> >>>>>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>>>>>> not looked
> >>>>>>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >>>>>>>> Javascript
> >>>>>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>>>>>> translate the
> >>>>>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >>>>>>>> Java is
> >>>>>>>> cool.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> >>>>>
> >>>>> often
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> in Ajax
> >>>>>>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>>>>>> programming
> >>>>>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>>>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> >>>>>
> >>>>> without
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> >>>>>
> >>>>> integrated
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>>>>>> present in
> >>>>>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>>>>>> right in
> >>>>>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>>>>>>>> JSON is
> >>>>>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the more
> >>>>>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>>>>>>>> but there
> >>>>>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>>>>>>>> perfectly
> >>>>>>>>> well.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Widget
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> module.
> >>>>>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> >>>>>
> >>>>> features
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .ftl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> >>>>>
> >>>>> more)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>>>>>> various
> >>>>>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> could
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> hark
> >>>>>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>>>>>>>> (events
> >>>>>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> >>>>>
> >>>>> controls in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>>>>>> potential
> >>>>>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "nice
> >>>>>>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OFBiz,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust
> >>>>>
> >>>>> case
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>>>>>>>> wait to
> >>>>>>>>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>>>>>>>> system,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> you can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>>>
> >>>> === message truncated ===

[David Goodenough]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:
> > >>>> Jonathon,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> >
> > which
> >
> > >>>> would
> > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which
> > >>
> > >> could
> > >>
> > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > >>>> possible to
> > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I
> > >>
> > >> am
> > >>
> > >>>> thinking
> > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> > >>>> binding
> > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> > >>>> originally
> > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> >
> > HTML
> >
> > >> and
> > >>
> > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> > >>>> include
> > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to
> > >>
> > >> start
> > >>
> > >>>> from
> > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary
> > >>
> > >> (or
> > >>
> > >>>> desirable)
> > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> > >>>> not looked
> > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> David
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>>> David,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and
> >
> > the
> >
> > >>>>> Javascript
> > >>>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> > >>>>> translate the
> > >>>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding
> >
> > in
> >
> > >>>>> Java is
> > >>>>> cool.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it
> > >>
> > >> often
> > >>
> > >>>>> in Ajax
> > >>>>> work with OFBiz.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jonathon
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> > >>>>>> course
> > >>>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> > >>>>>> programming
> > >>>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you
> >
> > get
> >
> > >>>>>> all the
> > >>>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser
> > >>
> > >> without
> > >>
> > >>>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and
> > >>
> > >> integrated
> > >>
> > >>>>>> into
> > >>>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> > >>>>>> present in
> > >>>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> > >>>>>> right in
> > >>>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP
> >
> > but
> >
> > >>>>>> JSON is
> > >>>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript
> > >>
> > >> is
> > >>
> > >>>>>> the more
> > >>>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well,
> > >>
> > >> in
> > >>
> > >>>>>> which
> > >>>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its
> >
> > environment,
> >
> > >>>>>> but there
> > >>>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will
> >
> > do
> >
> > >>>>>> perfectly
> > >>>>>> well.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> David
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the
> > >>
> > >> Widget
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> module.
> > >>>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related
> > >>
> > >> features
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE
> > >>
> > >> .ftl
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> (s).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or
> > >>
> > >> more)
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> > >>>>>>> various
> > >>>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> > >>>>>>> Prev/Next
> > >>>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further,
> > >>
> > >> could
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> hark
> > >>>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich
> >
> > UIs
> >
> > >>>>>>> (events
> > >>>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved
> > >>
> > >> in
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency
> > >>
> > >> controls in
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> > >>>>>>> acrobatics in
> > >>>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> > >>>>>>> potential
> > >>>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts
>
> === message truncated ===

[David Goodenough]

Actually GWT does not generate HTML, it generates DOM objects.  The
difference is perhaps being picky, but I think it is important.

Attaching GWT event handling to existing HTML is not something that
should be attempted.

David

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 06:25, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:

> David,
>
>  > I am not at all sure what you mean by "tight coupling with the HTML".
>
> GWT generates its own HTML code (the events, especially). GWT also
> generates the javascript codes (the event handlers). I can certainly use
> the generated javascript codes verbatim. But I'd have to somehow tweak my
> OFBiz form/screen widgets to connect them to the javascript codes.
>
> The problem is that GWT produces the HTML code for both events
> (onMouseOver, onClick, etc) and the actual UIs (aka controls, in SWT
> terminology). If, instead, GWT doesn't require the use of controls, but
> just simply requires the definition of events, it could be simpler to do.
>
> As it is now, it seems I have to do 2 things:
>
> 1. Create UI/controls with GWT,
>
> 2. Create event handlers with GWT,
>
> when I only want to do step 2.
>
> Still, you're right that I could do my own utterly stripped down controls,
> since I only want to program the event handlers and not the controls
> themselves.
>
> I'll look into this GWT soon.
>
>  > What I was reacting to was the thought that getting Javascript
>  > expertise into OfBiz might be difficult,
>
> Well, when situations create a need, we adapt. I've been doing OO
> Javascript for some time now, no problems. Yes, I did go through
> programming language study (parser, interpreter, compiler), but I think
> there are many FAQ guides on the web. Just ignore the discussions about
> scope and closure (which really is quite easy to grasp, if we just sit down
> and try).
>
>  > doing things in Java makes a lot of sense.
>
> It does, since Java is a much easier language than Javascript. I felt a
> load come off my shoulders when I moved from a PHP project to a Java
> project! I think I could've gotten stress-related health problems if I
> handled PHP for much longer.
>
>  > Personally I find Javascript to be a problematic language
>
> It is. What we can do with SWT (concurrency controls) cannot be done with
> Javascript. Or maybe I just haven't figured it out yet.
>
> Jonathon
>
> David Goodenough 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:
> >>> Jonathon,
> >>>
> >>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script which
> >>> would
> >>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code which could
> >>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> >>> possible to
> >>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).  I am
> >>> thinking
> >>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new Java
> >>> binding
> >>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was actually
> >>> originally
> >>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> >>>
> >>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about HTML and
> >>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You can
> >>> include
> >>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better to start
> >>> from
> >>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be necessary (or
> >>> desirable)
> >>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I have
> >>> not looked
> >>> closely enough to find out.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events) and the
> >>>> Javascript
> >>>> (event handlers). Is that correct? If so, I'd have to somehow
> >>>> translate the
> >>>> HTML output to OFBiz widgets. Still, GWT's support for coding in
> >>>> Java is
> >>>> cool.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, OFBiz supports JSON (via json-lib). I've been using it often
> >>>> in Ajax
> >>>> work with OFBiz.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathon
> >>>>
> >>>> David Goodenough wrote:
> >>>>> You ask about whether there are Javascript experts around.  Of
> >>>>> course
> >>>>> if you were to use GWT (Google Widget Toolkit), you do the
> >>>>> programming
> >>>>> in Java and it is translated into Javascript.  That way you get
> >>>>> all the
> >>>>> strict typing of Java but the implementation on the browser without
> >>>>> addons.  GWT is of course now entirely open source and integrated
> >>>>> into
> >>>>> Eclipse quite easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I read it much of what is needed for using GWT is already
> >>>>> present in
> >>>>> Ofbiz, GWT can use JSON as its comms protocol and I think I am
> >>>>> right in
> >>>>> saying that JSON is supported by Ofbiz.  You could use SOAP but
> >>>>> JSON is
> >>>>> lighter weight and as the execution environment is javascript is
> >>>>> the more
> >>>>> native protocol.  GWT does have its own RPC protocol as well, in
> >>>>> which
> >>>>> case you would have to write the server end in its environment,
> >>>>> but there
> >>>>> is no requirement to use it, JSON (or even native HTTP) will do
> >>>>> perfectly
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 04:33, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >>>>>> I was actually looking to pump in my enhancements to the Widget
> >>>>>> module.
> >>>>>> I've incorporated some Ajax-facilitating or Ajax-related features
> >>>>>> directly into the Widget module, so I won't have to do HUGE .ftl
> >>>>>> (s).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Imagine being able to use and reuse a widget-screen for 2 (or more)
> >>>>>> purposes: non-ajax operation and ajax operation (pulling down
> >>>>>> various
> >>>>>> sub-sub-parts of the screen).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In general, I was able to make all listings screens (with the
> >>>>>> Prev/Next
> >>>>>> hrefs) load via Ajax.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But be warned that this Ajax approach, if carried further, could
> >>>>>> hark
> >>>>>> back to those times when you programmed Java AWTs for rich UIs
> >>>>>> (events
> >>>>>> and concurrency). Except there's lots of javascript involved in
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> case, not Java, and bad news is there's no concurrency controls in
> >>>>>> javascript. Which means, prepare to get wickedly good at
> >>>>>> acrobatics in
> >>>>>> javascript (obscure acquired taste, really), or deal with the
> >>>>>> potential
> >>>>>> mess and meltdown. Please let me know if there's any experts in
> >>>>>> javascript OO and programming here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm willing to help with Ajax-ing OFBiz. Just let me know if the
> >>>>>> "nice
> >>>>>> addition" Andrew's talking about will go into Opentaps or OFBiz,
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> I'll follow. I only need to know if there's any anti-trust case
> >>>>>> against
> >>>>>> the body I'm contributing to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jonathon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrew Zeneski wrote:
> >>>>>>> This sounds like it will be a nice addition to OFBiz, I can't
> >>>>>>> wait to
> >>>>>>> see the progress!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Andrew
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Si Chen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If there are any developers interested in working on a CRM
> >>>>>>>> system,
> >>>>>>>> we're looking for more help here at Open Source Strategies.
> >>>>>>>> We have
> >>>>>>>> both full-time openings and part-time paid opportunities, and
> >>>>>>>> you can
> >>>>>>>> work from home and set your own hours.  You'll have a chance
> >>>>>>>> to work
> >>>>>>>> with us on a combination of client projects, our open source
> >>>>>>>> products,
> >>>>>>>> and just cool stuff you're interested in.
> >>>>>>>> We're especially looking for developers with strong
> >>>>>>>> familiarity with
> >>>>>>>> the following areas (though not necessarily just these):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1.  Front end development and Ajax
> >>>>>>>> 2.  Integration with external devices, such as mobile phones,
> >>>>>>>> handheld
> >>>>>>>> devices, etc.
> >>>>>>>> 3.  Analytics and reporting
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you're interested, please drop me a note off the list.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
> >>>>>>>>> all of
> >>>>>>>>> the technical side of things. All I know is that I would like
> >>>>>>>>> a CRM
> >>>>>>>>> portion of
> >>>>>>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and
> >>>>>>>>> solid email
> >>>>>>>>> client
> >>>>>>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>>>>>> technical ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> >>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> cash. I'd
> >>>>>>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>>>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> David E. Jones-2 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 6, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Scott A wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have some help from some service providers setting up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> system
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we've
> >>>>>>>>>>> already started to work on the gui which includes Ajax for
> >>>>>>>>>>> easier
> >>>>>>>>>>> use. There
> >>>>>>>>>>> are also many other options I'd like to have for my
> >>>>>>>>>>> business and
> >>>>>>>>>>> that hopefully I could give back to the ofbiz community too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you guys have any kind of bounty system or a wish list
> >>>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>>> likeminded
> >>>>>>>>>>> people could collaborate and get things done at a quicker
> >>>>>>>>>>> pace?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For example, I'd like to see a good CRM in the core of
> >>>>>>>>>>> ofbiz with
> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>> like zimbra being used for the calendaring and email. If
> >>>>>>>>>>> this were
> >>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>> feasible and there were likeminded people who would be
> >>>>>>>>>>> interested,
> >>>>>>>>>>> then we
> >>>>>>>>>>> could pool our resources and time, etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestions?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We don't have a bounty and bid system setup right now, but
> >>>>>>>>>> hopefully  soon or at some point some commercial entity in
> >>>>>>>>>> the OFBiz
> >>>>>>>>>> community  will do just that. It is something we have talked
> >>>>>>>>>> about,
> >>>>>>>>>> and even  using OFBiz to manage it, since about year 2 of the
> >>>>>>>>>> project and I  think it would be a really great thing for the
> >>>>>>>>>> project, and for  everyone who participates in both funding and
> >>>>>>>>>> developing different  things.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Right now the best thing to do is send a message to this
> >>>>>>>>>> list or
> >>>>>>>>>> the  dev list to see if anyone is interested in
> >>>>>>>>>> collaborating on
> >>>>>>>>>> this and  has enough of a business requirement for it to at
> >>>>>>>>>> least
> >>>>>>>>>> help to fund  involvement on their side.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My guess for something this specific and yet large in scope
> >>>>>>>>>> (ie in
> >>>>>>>>>> terms of the amount of work required, probably a few weeks
> >>>>>>>>>> worth)
> >>>>>>>>>> no  one will be able to participate for the "fun of it".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Who knows.... maybe someone will step up and agree with you
> >>>>>>>>>> on how
> >>>>>>>>>> cool it would be and start banging on it with you.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -David

[cjhowe]

What is preventing it from being done on the fly?  

--- David Goodenough <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:
> > > >>>> Jonathon,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> > >
> > > which
> > >
> > > >>>> would
> > > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code
> which
> > > >>
> > > >> could
> > > >>
> > > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > >>>> possible to
> > > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).
>  I
> > > >>
> > > >> am
> > > >>
> > > >>>> thinking
> > > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new
> Java
> > > >>>> binding
> > > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was
> actually
> > > >>>> originally
> > > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> > >
> > > HTML
> > >
> > > >> and
> > > >>
> > > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You
> can
> > > >>>> include
> > > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better
> to
> > > >>
> > > >> start
> > > >>
> > > >>>> from
> > > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be
> necessary
> > > >>
> > > >> (or
> > > >>
> > > >>>> desirable)
> > > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I
> have
> > > >>>> not looked
> > > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> David
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > >>>>> David,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events)
> and
> > >
>

=== message truncated ===

[David Goodenough]

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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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:
> > > > >>>> Jonathon,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Probably the best approach would be to write an xslt script
> > > >
> > > > which
> > > >
> > > > >>>> would
> > > > >>>> parse the OfBiz XML descriptors and generate skeleton code
> >
> > which
> >
> > > > >> could
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> then be subclassed to put in specific processing (it may be
> > > > >>>> possible to
> > > > >>>> generate the whole thing, I have not looked closely enough).
> >
> >  I
> >
> > > > >> am
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> thinking
> > > > >>>> of something like the juic system used by QtJambi - the new
> >
> > Java
> >
> > > > >>>> binding
> > > > >>>> for Qt that Trolltech have currently in beta (juic was
> >
> > actually
> >
> > > > >>>> originally
> > > > >>>> part of kdebindings but that is another story).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It may sound odd, but actually it is best not to think about
> > > >
> > > > HTML
> > > >
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> Javascript when coding GWT, it just complicates things.  You
> >
> > can
> >
> > > > >>>> include
> > > > >>>> explicit HTML or Javascript if necessary, but it is better
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > >> start
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> from
> > > > >>>> the position of doing it natively in GWT.  It may be
> >
> > necessary
> >
> > > > >> (or
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>> desirable)
> > > > >>>> to write some GWT code to emulate specific OfBiz widgets, I
> >
> > have
> >
> > > > >>>> not looked
> > > > >>>> closely enough to find out.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> David
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 13:22, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> > > > >>>>> David,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Seems to me the GWT will generate both the HTML (events)
> >
> > and
>
> === message truncated ===

[cjhowe]

I see, thank you.
--- David Goodenough <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 ===