Comments on: Google Web Toolkit: The correct level of abstraction?

By: Suresh

Suresh — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:40:02 +0000

Hi,
While compiling the GWT project, we get HTML and js files. I donno How i can integrate them to my web archive. Should I have to do it manually? If so then I hv to alter the links of other pages also is it??
I am getting confused with it.
In my project we have normal JSP’s. Assume that I have only some JSP’s and not all JSP’s where i need the functionality of GWT.So How can I integrate the pages generated by GWT with the existing JSP pages?

Finally, I am very new to GWT…

Thanks in Advance…

By: scott taylor

scott taylor — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:25:05 +0000

I am a java developer, and looking at this, I think that this is in it’s current state very cumbersome. Swing ui development is a far cry from the simplicity of web ui development, as the web browser handles many of the nasty details. I could this being useful for the generation of very small and optimized libraries, but otherwise, why create another layer of abstraction which is non-standard, not easily accessible, and causes people to have to shift to another paradigm.

I have done a lot of swing programming, some fairly complex, and I fear swing/mfc much more than web and javascript.

I think the fractured nature of the libraries and frameworks can be problematic, however, adding a whole new layer of unrelated tools is not a solution I like.

Eventually there probably will be a standardized, compiled or compilable language for web ui, but until standardized across several browsers, I wouldn’t waste my time learning it.

By: shruti

shruti — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:08:57 +0000

Thank god someone has cared to look at the downside. All that I’d read about GWT was good and I was beginning to wonder if it has any flaws at all. Your article has definitely helped me to decide.

By: Scott Brison - Self help cente

Scott Brison - Self help cente — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:30:38 +0000

Google has just released version 1.2 of the Google Web Toolkit (GWT) with full Mac OS X support provided by WebKit. GWT allows web developers to create shiny AJAX web applications entirely in Java, which GWT compiles to JavaScript. While Mac users were able to use the GWT compiler in previous versions, they couldnâ€™t use GWTâ€™s hosted browser to debug their web apps. WebKit has made it possible for Google to bring these development tools to the Mac, and, as a surprise Mac-only bonus, web developers using GWT get to use the Web Inspector, too!

By: MalkolM

MalkolM — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:56:40 +0000

Google have released the Google Web Toolkit â€” â€œBuild AJAX apps in the Java languageâ€. At first I thought this might just be their version of the Yahoo UI Library, but it turns out to be a completely different approach to the same problem. The YUI Library (and most other Ajax libraries) allow you to build a Web UI directly, using HTML and JavaScript. With GWT, you write a GUI application in Java, and GWT translates it into JavaScript and HTML for web deployment. Itâ€™s a less flexible approach, but could make it easier for Java developers to develop web applications with desktop-style GUIs â€” if this is what they really want.

Differences between Google and Yahoo in the tools they provide developers for AJAX-style interfacesâ€¦â€¦.

By: Itude » Blog Archive » Google Web Toolkit pt II

Itude » Blog Archive » Google Web Toolkit pt II — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:52:27 +0000

[...] The GWT approach is very smart when you consider what it is designed for: building applications for the Google ecosystem.A codegen/class library approach is the best way to ensure consistency and compatibility of these apps. Google can engineer in the capabilities, UI standards, look & feel, performance characteristics, etc that are appropriate for G-applications. If you develop an app using GWT, you (and Google) can be fairly comfortable that it will be compatible with other G-applications. Think portlets.Of course, this approach assumes that the class library is perfectly complete for your applications’ requirements. But that is the whole point – this toolkit is not intended for general web application development – it is intended for G-applications.Interesting to compare this against Yahoo’s mashup-friendly APIs. Most Ajaxians today will probably favor Yahoo, but you can’t ignore the potential size of the G-application market. These guys are going up against Microsoft, for sure.Lees het hele stuk (voor meer perspectieven) hier [...]

By: webthreads.de » del.icio.us Thread #1 - GWT

webthreads.de » del.icio.us Thread #1 - GWT — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:58:51 +0000

[...] Ajaxian: GWT – The correct level of abstraction? [Link] [...]

By: FranÃ§ois

FranÃ§ois — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 05:45:47 +0000

Whenever you want to code a slightly above than average UI using JS, a UI that could emulate a desktop UI at the most basic level, you have to gather up a bunch (and I mean a whole bunch) of JS libraries: YUI for DnD and maybe its event model, Mochikit for DOM manipulation (it has a good event model too: which one to choose?), maybe Moo, why not a touch of Rico (nice accordeons for the last two: which one are the nicest?), Prototype for some low level operations (hurray for the $() operator). Or, if you’re not faint at heart, go the Dojo way with its vast expenses of undocumented code. You might just end up with 20 tags in the head section of your html document, wishing it all works together like a big happy family.

Oh, I was forgetting! If you’re serious about your UI, you will need to find a way to muster some OO structure in your javascript code: roughly a dozen different valid ways (and probably another dozen of no so valid ways) to force some object-orientation in a language that was meant to put a little flash in static HTML, not build complex UI. Let’s choose one technic among those. And then, let’s hope IE doesn’t leak when all these libraries are put together!

The GWT way: uniform model for UI, which UI you describe in an OO language, in a way that’s natural to any SWT or Swing programmer. It’s in its infancy (but what a beautiful babe!): we’ll see a lot of improvement coming from all over the place from talented people. Thanks Alexei for your nice work on Scriptaculous. We should try some integration with YUI.

By: Hermann Klinke

Hermann Klinke — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:16:21 +0000

“I just canâ€™t find a halfway descent editor for JavaScript that has good code completion and refactoring capabilities.”

Did you try JSEcplise?. It’s a Eclipse plug-in that brings code completion, code templates and a lot of other neat stuff to Javscript.

By: Robert Hanson

Robert Hanson — Tue, 30 May 2006 13:03:52 +0000

Wow, I just don’t get where any of this is coming from. GWT allows me to write in Java, to share my code via JAR’s, to do ANYTHING that I could do in JavaScript while still retaining access to powerful Java tools. As AJAX apps get larger, we need something better, and I think GWT is a good start. As for “fearing” JavaScript, I don’t fear it… I just can’t find a halfway descent editor for JavaScript that has good code completion and refactoring capabilities. JavaScript was made to be simple, and this simplicity has made it difficult to build good tools. In short, with GWT I get the tool support I need to build large applications.

By: Dan Roberts

Dan Roberts — Thu, 25 May 2006 14:20:40 +0000

Honestly I only started trying out GWT lastnight so I can’t comment much on that sepcifically, but I do believe having a layer of abstraction for the browser is the future. Writing code in XML, Java, whatever that is then compiled into html/javascript is how much development will occur in web based software interfaces starting in the next couple years in my opinion. I think browser based development will soon have a similar workflow to what Adobe/Macromedia is doing wth Flex/MXML and what has been available on the desktop for decades in GUI development. I would predict Javascript be the defacto language for managing UI changes in these environments but if there is an abstraction layer for this so that interfaces can be compiled to various platforms then so be it.

By: JWAX

JWAX — Wed, 24 May 2006 05:27:34 +0000

FYI: JWAX team released a UI Framework for AJAX modeled after Swing/SWT originally in January, with version .4b last Tuesday. This frameworks supports runtime generation of L&F through renderkits. It is an oo component/event framework with support for aggregated components and plugable themes. You can review this toolkit at http://www.jwax.org for more information.

JWAX Team

By: Agile Ajax

Agile Ajax — Tue, 23 May 2006 14:02:38 +0000

Does Google Eat its Own Dogfood?

Google recently released the Google Web Toolkit. The basic idea behind the toolkit is that you can write AJAX applications in Java: public class Hello implements EntryPoint { public void onModuleLoad() { Button b = new Button(Click me, new ClickListener()

By: Jordan Meeter

Jordan Meeter — Mon, 22 May 2006 18:56:33 +0000

Interesting article, thanks. :]

(I came from technorati btw)

By: ian

ian — Mon, 22 May 2006 15:59:20 +0000

I just wanted to say that as someone who first learnt to program using Java and then moving over to web development Iâ€™ve found the transition really easy and picking up JavaScript was not a problem. All you have to remember is that everything is an object (just like java). All you need then is the DOM reference and youâ€™re away. Any java developer should be able to make the transition without a hitch. The biggest problem is, as mentioned already, the browser inconsistencies, but that is getting better all the time. (Will ms have it right with ie7?).
Debugging is also getting easier with the appropriate plug-ins.

As for the GWT it does sound like something that will make it more complicated for the standard app but I’m sure will help if you want to integrate with Google, though I donâ€™t have the time or inclination to try it yet.

Bottom line; learn to use the right tool (skill set) for the job.

By: kelly

kelly — Mon, 22 May 2006 14:25:38 +0000

The one thing I like about the GWT approach is that it lets you write your code in an environment that at least does some basic syntax checking, giving one of the benefits of a compiled language in a JavaScript environment. Other than that though, I don’t like the approach. In my experience, just about every tool and/or library that comes along with the goal of making complex tasks simple (GWT, JSF, IBM RAD Wizards, VB, etc.) eventually reaches its limit, and springs a leak. When that happens, what do you do? In the case of something like GWT, you may be looking at several hours or days of sifting through inscrutable JavaScript code to find a problem, which is not an idea I like the sound of.

I prefer something like JSLint to check my JavaScript code at build time, and using libraries to isolate me from browser-specific stuff.

By: Hubris Sonic

Hubris Sonic — Mon, 22 May 2006 01:21:05 +0000

I have to agree, I was originally excited, but it seems like a level of obsfucation that isnt necessary. Its not like Java and JS are that different.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 21 May 2006 18:27:32 +0000

I can't see myself writing the Javascript in Java instead, but haXe looks very exciting ! I definitly have to try it when I get some free time.

By: J. Johanson

J. Johanson — Sun, 21 May 2006 14:59:52 +0000

I looked at the generated Javascript code. It is littered with strings refering to Java class names and method names on the server. Surely this is a security concern. The browser client should not be aware of the implementation on the server, or be given the opportunity to call arbitrary methods (or call known methods in a different order or with different inputs).

By: Deep Codes » The Correct Level of Abstraction?

Deep Codes » The Correct Level of Abstraction? — Sun, 21 May 2006 10:19:19 +0000

[...] Ajaxian Â» Google Web Toolkit: The correct level of abstraction? [...]