Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm at the beginning/middle of a project that we chose to implement using GWT. Has anyone encountered any major pitfalls in using GWT (and GWT-EXT) that were unable to be overcome? How about from a performance perspective?
A couple things that we've seen/heard already include:
Google not being able to index content
CSS and styling in general seems to be a bit flaky
Looking for any additional feedback on these items as well. Thanks!
I'll start by saying that I'm a massive GWT fan, but yes there are many pitfalls, but most if not all we were able to overcome:
Problem: Long compile times, as your project grows so does the amount of time it takes to compile it. I've heard of reports of 20 minute compiles, but mine are on average about 1 minute.
Solution: Split your code into separate modules, and tell ant to only build it when it's changed. Also while developing, you can massively speed up compile times by only building for one browser. You can do this by putting this into your .gwt.xml file:
<set-property name="user.agent" value="gecko1_8" />
Where gecko1_8 is Firefox 2+, ie6 is IE, etc.
Problem: Hosted mode is very slow (on OS X at least) and does not come close to matching the 'live' changes you get when you edit things like JSPs or Rails pages and hit refresh in your browser.
Solution: You can give the hosted mode more memory (I generally got for 512M) but it's still slow, I've found once you get good enough with GWT you stop using this. You make a large chunk of changes, then compile for just one browser (generally 20s worth of compile) and then just hit refresh in your browser.
Update: With GWT 2.0+ this is no longer an issue, because you use the new 'Development Mode'. It basically means you can run code directly in your browser of choice, so no loss of speed, plus you can firebug/inspect it, etc.
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/wiki/UsingOOPHM
Problem: GWT code is java, and has a different mentality to laying out a HTML page, which makes taking a HTML design and turning it into GWT harder
Solution: Again you get used to this, but unfortunately converting a HTML design to a GWT design is always going to be slower than doing something like converting a HTML design to a JSP page.
Problem: GWT takes a bit of getting your head around, and is not yet mainstream. Meaning that most developers that join your team or maintain your code will have to learn it from scratch
Solution: It remains to be seen if GWT will take off, but if you're a company in control of who you hire, then you can always choose people that either know GWT or want to learn it.
Problem: GWT is a sledgehammer compared to something like jquery or just plain javascript. It takes a lot more setup to get it happening than just including a JS file.
Solution: Use libraries like jquery for smaller, simple tasks that are suited to those. Use GWT when you want to build something truly complex in AJAX, or where you need to pass your data back and forth via the RPC mechanism.
Problem: Sometimes in order to populate your GWT page, you need to make a server call when the page first loads. It can be annoying for the user to sit there and watch a loading symbol while you fetch the data you need.
Solution: In the case of a JSP page, your page was already rendered by the server before becoming HTML, so you can actually make all your GWT calls then, and pre-load them onto the page, for an instant load. See here for details:
Speed up Page Loading by pre-serializing your GWT calls
I've never had any problems CSS styling my widgets, out of the box, custom or otherwise, so I don't know what you mean by that being a pitfall?
As for performance, I've always found that once compiled GWT code is fast, and AJAX calls are nearly always smaller than doing a whole page refresh, but that's not really unique to GWT, though the native RPC packets that you get if you use a JAVA back end are pretty compact.
We have been working with gwt for almost 2 years. We have learned a lot of lessons. Here is what we think:
Dont use third party widget libraries especially gwt-ext. It will kill your debugging, development and runtime performance. If you have questions about how this happens, contact me directly.
Use gwt to only fill in the dynamic parts of your apps. So if you have some complex user interactions with lots of fields. However, don't use the panels that come with it. Take your existing stock designer supplied pages. Carve out the areas that will contain the controls for your app. Attach these controls to the page within onModuleLoad(). This way you can use the standard pages from your designer and also do all the styling outside the gwt.
Don't build the entire app as one standard page that then dynamically builds all the pieces. If you do what I suggest in item 2, this won't happen anyway. If you build everything dynamically you will kill performance and consume huge amounts of memory for medium to large apps. Also, if you do what I am suggesting, the back button will work great, so will search engine indexing etc.
The other commenters also had some good suggestions. The rule of thumb i use is to create pages like you were doing a standard web page. Then carve out the pieces that need to be dynamic. Replace them with elements that have id's and then use RootPanel.get( id ).add( widget ) to fill those areas in.
Pitfalls that we've run into:
While you can get a lot of mileage from using something like GWT EXT, any time you use this sort of thin veneer on top of a JavaScript library, you lose the ability to debug. More than once I've bashed my head on the desk because I cannot inspect (inside my IntelliJ debugger) what's happening in the GWT EXT table class... All you can see is that it's a JavaScriptObject. This makes it quite difficult to figure out what's gone wrong...
Not having someone on your team who knows CSS. From my experience, it didn't matter that the person wasn't expert...it's enough that he has some good working knowledge, and knows the right terms to google when necessary.
Debugging across browsers. Keep an eye on Out of Process Hosted Mode[1][2][3], hopefully coming in GWT 1.6... For now, you just have to get things good with hosted mode, then use the "Compile/Browse" button, where you can play with other browsers. For me, working on Windows, this means I can view my work in FireFox, and use FireBug to help tweak and make things better.
IE6. It's amazing how different IE 6 will render things. I've taken the approach of applying a style to the outermost "viewport" according to the browser so that I can have CSS rules like:
.my-style { /* stuff that works most everywhere */ }
.msie6 .my-style { /* "override" so that styles work on IE 6 */ }
Finally, make sure you use an editor that helps you. I use IntelliJ -- it's got lots of GWT smarts. E.g., If I try to use a class that isn't handled by the JRE emulation, it lets me know; if I specify a style for a widget, and I haven't defined that style yet, the code gets the little red squiggly... Or, when looking at the CSS, it will tell me when I've specified conflicting attributes in a single rule. (I haven't tried it yet, but I understand that version 8 has even better GWT support, like keeping the "local" and "async" RPC interfaces and implementations in sync.)
GWT 2.0, which is supposed to come out sometime in the next few months, solves a lot of the issues discussed.
Create layouts using an html/xml like syntax
Dynamic Script Loading - only the essential JS will be downloaded initially. The rest will be downloaded as needed
In-Browser Hosted Mode - This might take care of the hosted mode speed issues discussed, among other benefits
"Compiler Optimizations" - Faster compilation, hopefully
GWT 2.0 Preview Video at Google I/O
Not "unable to be overcome" but a bit of a pain for something basic.
Date handling:
GWT uses the deprecated java.util.Date which can lead to unexpected behaviour when dealing with dates on the client side. java.util.Calendar is not supported by GWT. More info here.
Related problem examples:
GWT java.util.Date serialization bug
Get Date details (day, month, year) in GWT
Client side time zone support in GWT
I'll add some points to the ones already mentioned:
Databinding/validation. GWT doesn't have a databinding/validation support out of the box, although there are some projects on this area starting to emerge. You'll find yourself writing alot of this:
TextField fname, faddress;
...
fname.setText(person.getName());
faddress.setText(person.getAddress());
...
Lazy loading. Since gwt is on the client side, lazy loading is really not an option. You'll have to design your RPCs and Domain Objects carefully in order to
send all your object data that is needed
avoid eager fetching all of your data
You'll have also to make sure that you will not send proxies/non serializable objects. hibernate4gwt can help you with these points.
UI design. It is harder to visualize an UI in java (Panels, Buttons, etc) than in html.
History support. GWT does not ship with a History subsystem, nor does it ship with any subsystem for nice urls or statefull bookmarking. You'll have to roll your own (although it has support for History tokens, which is a start). This happens with all AJAX toolkits AFAIK.
IMHO, GWT is missing a framework that has out of the box support for all of the issues mentioned on this 'thread'.
I'm working on a project right now that uses EXT GWT (GXT) not to be confused with GWT EXT. There is a difference, EXT GWT is the one that is actually produced by the company that wrote ExtJS the javascript library. GWT EXT is a GWT wrapper around the ExtJS library. GXT is native GWT.
Anyways, GXT is still somewhat immature and lacks a solid community that I feel GWT EXT has. However, the future is with GXT, as it's native GWT and actually developed by the company that made ExtJS. GWT EXT is somewhat crippled as the license changed on the ExtJS library, thus slowing the development of GWT EXT.
Overall, I think GWT/GXT is a good solution for developing a web application. I actually quite like hosted mode for development, it makes things quick and easy. You also get the benefit of being able to debug your code as well. Unit testings with JUnit is pretty solid as well. I haven't yet seen a great JavaScript unit testing framework that I felt was mature enough for testing an enterprise application.
For more information on GWT EXT:
http://gwt-ext.com/
For more information on EXT GWT (GXT):
http://extjs.com/products/gxt/
No major pitfalls that I haven't been able to overcome easily. Use hosted mode heavily.
As you are using GWT-ext you will almost never need to touch CSS yourself unless you want to tweak the out of the box look.
My recommendation is to use a GWT "native" widget over a library one where they are close in features.
Re search engine indexing: yes the site will not have navigable URLs normally (unless you are only adding widgets to elements of a regular web site). You can do history back/forward functionality though.
I used GWT and GWT-ext together on a project a while ago. I found the experience quite smooth as web development goes, but my advice would be this:
Don't mix GWT native widgets with EXT widgets. It's confusing as hell, since usually the names are the same (GWT.Button or GWText.Button?)
One thing that happened to me that really made the code more complex than I'd like, was that I wanted a Panel that was
a) dynamically updatable
b) cascadable
GWT native panels are dynamic, Ext panels are cascadable. Solution? A GWT.VerticalPanel wrapping a GWTExt Panel... Chaos. :)
But hey, it works. ;)
I second the comment from ykagano, the biggest disadvantage is losing the V in MVC. Although you can separate the true ui class from the rest of your client side code, you cannot easily use an HTML page generated by a graphic/web designer. This means you need a developer to translate HTML into java.
Get a wysiwyg ui editor, it will save you lots of time. I use GWTDesigner.
The biggest upside of GWT is being able to forget about cross browser issues. Its not 100% but takes almost all that pain away. Combined with the benefit of hosted mode debugging (as opposed to Firebug which is excellent but not the same as a java debugger) it gives the developer a huge advantage in generating complex ajax apps.
Oh and its fast at runtime, especially if you use a gzip filter.
Slightly off-topic, but the #gwt channel on irc is very helpful, in-case you have a persistent problem.
GWT is pretty straight-forward and intuitive.
Especially with the release of UIBinder to allow GWT widgets to be laid out in XML and then coded-behind in Java.
So if you have used other Ajax or Flash design tools, or Silverlight, etc, GWT is very easy to learn.
The major hurdle, if not pitfall, is GWT RPC. The very reason you wish to use GWT is because of GWT async RPC. Otherwise, why not just rely on css to format your page?
GWT RPC is that element that allows your server to refresh data on your server without having to refresh the page. This is an absolute requirement for pages such as stock performance monitoring (or the current national and public debt of the US or the number of unborn babies aborted worldwide by the second).
GWT RPC takes some effort to understand but given a few hours, it should come all clear.
Above that, after putting in some effort to learn GWT RPC, you finally discover that you cannot use JSPs as the service component for RPC, unless ... I have an 8 part (I think) series on my blog on how to use JSP as the GWT RPC servicer. However, since you had not asked for answers but just issues, I shall desist from advertising my blog.
So. I very much believe that the worst roadblocks/pitfalls to using GWT is finding out how to properly deploy GWT async RPC and how to enable it to use JSP servicers.
We've had a very hard time marrying our GWT codebase with HTML web templates that we got from a web designer (static HTML pages with specific div ids that we wanted GWT to manage). At least back when we used it, we couldn't get GWT to integrate with parts of our website that were not coded in GWT. We had it working eventually, but it was a big hack.
The Async interface you have to write for each service interface looks like something that could have been automatically generated by the GWT compiler.
Compile times become long for large projects
But for a large Javascript project it's the best choice
GWT 2.4 has fixed many of the aforementioned issues and a great widget library is just coming out of Beta (Ext GWT 3.0.4 a.k.a. GXT), which is written completely in GWT, not a wrapper of a JS lib.
Remaining pain:
Lack of CSS3 selector support, you can use "literal()" in some cases to get around it.
Lack of support for CSS3 and modern browser events like transitionEnd.
Lack of Java Calendar class support (many years later).
Lack of JUnit4 support (5 years and counting).
Lack of clear road map and release schedule from Google GWT team.
Regarding GWT 2.4, Use Firefox when debugging GWT, it alot more faster then using chrome.
And if you'll using only firefox, consider putting this line in your project.gwt.xml file
<set-property name="user.agent" value="gecko1_8" />
Also, If you're using eclipse, then add the following under arguments -> VM arguments:
-Xmx512m -XX:MaxPermSize=1024m -XX:PermSize=1024m
You can divide your server and client, and use the following under arguments -> Program arguments:
-codeServerPort 9997 -startupUrl http://yourserver/project -noserver
Also, to prevent refreshing your server on each change, use JRebel
http://zeroturnaround.com/blog/how-to-rock-out-with-jrebel-and-google-web-toolkit-gwt/
And here's a live demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4JGGFCzspaY
One major pitfall is that sometimes you need to explicitly assign an id to what ultimately becomes an HTML element to be able to use certain CSS styles. For instance: a GWT TabPanel will only do :hover over tabBarItems when the tabBar of the tabPanel has been assigned an id and you specify a :hover on that elementId.
I wrote about some other disadvantages of GWT elsewhere, but they are already covered by rustyshelfs answer :).
I have done a lot of work on GWT recently, and this is wht i have to say:
CSS styling is tricky only sometimes, use IE developer tool in IE and firebug in Firefox to figure out what exactly is happening and you will get a clear idea of what css needs to be changed
You can use tricks to get google to index it. A very famous site is http://examples.roughian.com/ check its ratings at google. A far less famous site is www.salvin.in (couldnt resist to mention that), i optimised it to words: salvin home page (search google for these three words)
I do not know much about GWT-EXT, But i too am of the belief that there is no need to include Third party libraries.
Best of luck on your decision :)
GWT does Browser Sniffing instead of Feature Detection and your application will not work on some browsers (specially new ones)
Here are some references of the problem:
google-web-toolkit Issue 2938: RFE: improve the user.agent property-provider to cope for userAgent string "masking"
Iceweasel no longer supported? - Google Docs Help
GWT implementations for every browser
Here are some references to Feature Detection:
Browser Detecting (and what to do Instead)
Feature Detection: State of the Art Browser Scripting
Browser Feature Detection
Extracted from Comparison of JavaScript frameworks - Wikipedia
The GWT team make a lot of great improvements in to last year releasing GWT 2.7. One major weakness of GWT was that compilation takes to much time in GWT 2.6 and below. This is now gone GWT has not incremental compile which is super fast and compiles only the changes.
GWT 2.7 now has (Source):
Incremental builds now just seconds
More compact, more accurate SourceMaps
GSS support
JSInterop
Great JavaScript Performance
Smaller Code Size
The best way to get reliable facts are from the gwt survey. One of the biggest issues with GWT has always been a long compile time. Fortunately, it's improving very quickly so it won't be a significant issue in the near future. Another pitfall is that GWT is dramatically more complicated because Java is a more complicated language that resists bad coders every step of the way. In addition, compiling adds a layer. For example, js interop requires a little boilerplate. The fundamental issue is that GWT wasn't designed to be simple. It was designed from the ground up for extremely complicated web apps and the entire community consistently prioritizes, performance, code quality, architecture etcetera over easy coding.
Remember that you can use js in GWT at any point so if you are struggling with GWT consider using js. At the end of the day GWT is js so you can do anything in GWT that you can in js. In fact, most GWT projects use js. The problem is that GWT is drastically more complicated. Nevertheless, it's sometimes worth the extra complexity.
It's worth noting that GWT 3.0 will bring massive improvements.
Re-using RPC service objects.
It causes race conditions with symptoms that look like the app hanging.
Pitfalls I ran into
1. Different behaviour in superdev mode. E.g. Someclass.class.getName() works absolutely fine in Superdev mode and returns the fully qualified name of the class. In productive mode this does not work.
addWidget(widget) will call widget's removefromparent()
GWT is a technology masterpiece. It unites client and server programming making it one coherent application - the way software was written before "layering", and the way it should be written. It eliminates different skills sets, miscommunication between team members, and generally the whole Web Design phase: both the artistic and programming. And it is the closest you'd get to mobile e.g. Android development. In fact GWT was designed to generate different native UIs, not just HTML. Though it requires enormous discipline to ensure such decoupling - to keep your inner layers presentation-agnostic.
The first mistake you should avoid, which took me four years to realize, is using third-party extensions like EXT-GWT aka GXT and SmartGWT. It is very tempting to start using their pretty desktopish widgets instead of investing in your own styling, but I cannot tell how many problems I had with SmartGWT until I finally got fed up. In short it freezes the core GWT feature set at the certain (pretty outdated) level and then builds on top of it. Also keep in mind, that chiseled desktop look and feel looks silly nowadays, not to mention the sluggish performance, tons of bugs, and compatibility features - especially on mobile devices. You want to stay as close to the native browser controls, as possible i.e. dropdowns rendered as native <select> elements, not some custom-painted controls.
Thanks to mobile trends the whole UX is becoming simpler and flatter, so you don't need to do much to style a sharp-looking application. Though if you want "3D" look, there are also gradients. CSS3 made everything easy, and GWT wraps it an elegant object-oriented manner unlike the raw CSS. So don't be discouraged by looking at rather ugly barebones controls in the GWT Showcase. The GWT team intentionally didn't offer any styling, because it it the developer's job.
The rest is pretty much conventional browser programming in strongly typed Java with beautiful concise APIs. But of course never forgetting your code runs inside the browser, so all of the calls are asynchronous e.g. you cannot call GWT-RPC methods in a loop (to populate some list), but need to recursively chain them if you ever come to to this situation.
There are some self-proclaimed "anti-patterns" like don't use GWT-RPC. It's been good to me so far: for 10 years. Simplicity is key. I wouldn't think even a second to sacrifice some marginal performance for code elegance and maintainability. besides this is not where your bottlenecks would be - in the database. Of course mind how much data you are sending to the client.
And if you cannot find or style the existing gadget - read rich HTML5 element set, you can always wrap a third-party one. I did it with a popular jQuery FullCalendar. Not rocket science at all. Everything else like Google Maps and Google Charts has semi-official GWT wrappers.
GWT is perfect. The only reason it doesn't get enough love is because early Internet adopters who still influence the industry didn't come from Computer Science and object-oriented languages to appreciate them. They have either artistic (Photoshop/WordPress) or network (Perl/Python) background.
Related
We want to write a UI that consists of HTML, Javascript (JQuery) and CSS. Although the initial starting point will be served up by a web server, there won't be any sever side templating. The browser will interact with the server via a restful interface and render its UI.
What are the risks of this approach?
Ideally I'd like a nice, straightforward javascript OO api which underneath makes http calls to the server to get JSON representations of resources. Any suggestions as to how this could be structured?
Anyone have experience with browser side templating?
Is there a framework to make this style of development easier?
We will also be defining the server side resources and my thoughts are to follow ruby on rails conventions. For example, if you define a Users resource in routes.rb, you have 7 uri templates. Any thoughts?
By the way, the server side functionality will be developed in java.
I have plenty of experience with this approach. I can guarantee you that it works - how well in the long run, I don't know yet but I'm extremely happy with it (as a developer).
You do need to make sure that you've mastered Javascript. Read up on the state of the art, at least check Douglas Crockford's work, and most notably JSLint.
As for frameworks, this is where your vision comes in. We've built one from scratch because we need a combination of tools that existing frameworks don't and because we think we have the vision and expertise to carry it through. You have to compare the pro's and con's. If you use an existing framework you have very little control over it's direction or the speed at which bugs are found and fixed. If you build one yourself you could run the risk of making wrong decisions and ending up with a framework that doesn't quite work.
I have noticed that in our applications the custom server side code is only very small. This means the importance of the backend is only very small (validation, sanity, authorization). We use PHP, but simply because we have loads of experience with PHP.
There are definitely risks. In the startup and early transition I have noticed that 'lesser' programmers have trouble catching up. There is a very steep learning curve for anyone not too familiar with Javascript and it's many elegances.
Another risk is performance. We're advising our customers to use Google Chrome, simply because
And then there is compatibility. The idea of a framework is that it's able to hide this complexity. Luckily browsers are increasing in-tune in accordance to standards but backwards compatibility with (for instance) IE6 is incredibly difficult.
I would advise against using jQuery. I find jQuery more of a 'plugin' than an actual framework. jQuery really shines when you have a website and you want to sprinkle on some fanciness. It has some very good general tools (DOM manipulation and all that) but it's very lacking in the business-modeling area.
I would also advise against an OO approach. For some very small number of domains OO is the perfect solution. For most businesses, it's not. And Javascript is capable of so much more than just OO.
The #1 problem (and, perhaps, the only problem) is search engine. It is not sure how well will your content be recognized/crawalble/searchable. The underyling cause is that the search engine is not necessarily going to understand your content (since it is only revealed once Javascript gets executed).
Other than that, it is a great approach. I tried it several times and it works great (assuming you're not intimidated by Javascript). The resulting web-site is usually much more responsive than traditional web-sites since the server -> client traffic is quite small - only the raw data is transmitted. All the UI stuff is generated, by Javascript, on the client side.
I am torn between Wicket and Vaadin. I am starting a micro-isv and need to make a choice of web framework. I have narrowed down my choices to Wicket and Vaadin. I have used both frameworks and I love them both. however I need to make a choice.
If If I choose Vaadin:
I wont have to worry much about the look and feel. It comes with nice themes.
I will do all my programming in Java which am very good at and wont have to spend time hacking CSS which am not very good at.
And most of the components that I will need for a business applications are there OUT OF THE BOX including, desktop like layout, tooltips, Keyboard shortcuts, tables with draggable and collapsible columns to name a few.
However, if I go the Vaadin way:
I will loose the ability to create UI declaratively.
I wont have the fallback feature if the browser doesn't support JavaScript - e.g most non Webkit mobile browsers.
Vaadin company is selling some components - e.g the JPAContainer so am not sure the company will be committed to offering full open-source framework. Business interests will always come first.
Vaadin applications will be mostly for the intranet. They are not very suitable for the internet with a web look and feel.
If I go the Wicket way:
I will have to style my applications and I can hardly give them a desktop look and feel.
Any advice? Anyone with experience on either framework kindly tell me the cons and pros and how you made your decision.
I think I've invested some time for both frameworks. I really like both because they bring the Swing-alike coding to web development. And I don't know easier ones for me (although there is click but I don't like the velocity templating thing)
And yes, there are differences.
I wont have to worry much about the look and feel.It comes with nice themes
true, but every serious company will style its app differently (unless you are prototyping)
I will do all my programming in java which am very good at and wont have to spend time hacking css which am not very good at
Then Vaadin would be 'better'.
i will loose the ability to create UI declaratively.
What are the advantages of that? (BTW: you could code declarative in groovy ;-))
But ok. I know what you mean: if you can afford a few separate designers then wicket is 'better'.
i can hardly give them a desktop look and feel.
Why not? Or what do you mean here? Wicket supports ajax and there are components which supports nice 'desktop-alike' things (ajaxlink, lazycomponent, autocompletion, progressbar, see wicket stuff + extensions). ok, for any more complex component you'll have to code in javascript BUT BTW did you know that you could even use GWT within wicket
Some minor experiences:
Vaadin is surely faster while coding (no css, html stuff). But if you go production keep in mind that the ease of programming can come to the cost of performance on the client side: e.g. if you use the 'wrong' layouts such as Horizontal/VerticalLayout, ... the massive use of javascript could slow down old browser.
But Vaadin is not slow! Use appropriate layouts such as CssLayout or FastLayout and also old browser can serve it. (Although if you would use CssLayout your coding-style is really wicket-alike.)
One issue with Vaadin is that it is a bit harder to profile, because you don't see easily where the client needs all the CPU and the nested divs gets cryptic id-names.
One great thing about Wicket is its warp persist integration
(Guice can be integrated in Vaadin and Wicket)
Testing the UI should be easy with Vaadin (although I didn't found unit testing stuff) and is very easy with wicket.
Last but not least creating lists/tables is VERY easy in Vaadin compared to wicket.
I've worked extensively with Wicket but I've not had any experience with Vaadin so this might be (a little) biased.
I'd recommend Wicket for obvious reasons, but what's probably of interest to you is Wickets openness. As Gweebz rightly pointed out, Wicket uses basic HTML markup as its foundation, so any structural or cosmetic changes are often trivial to implement.
Personally one of the things I really enjoy about out wicket work is the flow between front end presentation and the data backend, we've implemented Spring & JPA/Hibernate which means that any changes in the front end can be translated back into the data base with a single line of code thanks to Wickets model based architecture.
Again I can't say much for Vaadin having never worked with it, but if you're looking for architectures to start off with, I'd also recommend you have a look at GWT.
(continued from the comment in the first Wicket-related answer)
The major difference between Vaadin and Wicket is with how UI composition and client side code is written. With Vaadin you usually compose your UI without any templates or HTML at all and you get a sleek, fully Ajax'ed UI out of the box. However, if you prefer the templating approach just use CustomLayout which does exactly that.
Client side coding is rarely needed, but when it is you do it with the Java-based GWT which is IMO a lot more nicer than writing Javascript by hand. Besides, with GWT you automatically get cross-browser compliant solution instead of having to deal with those issues yourself.
When comparing frameworks you also should take a look at community activity and documentation. With Vaadin both of those are excellent. Also note the Vaadin Directory which currently contains 100+ very useful UI components and other addons.
I have a limited amount of experience with each but I prefer Vaadin. It allowed a richer experience with the web application I was developing. The main benefit that sold us though was how easy it was to write unit tests around our UI classes, ensuring the components functioned correctly when interacted with in the expected ways. This is also possible with Wicket however it was more difficult in my experience.
I will also mention that either framework will require some styling. Wicket starts off as plain old HTML and Vaadin starts off with a MacOSX-like theme by default but almost any web-app you write will require at least SOME customization. With this in mind, customizing the CSS of a Wicket app is SIGNIFICANTLY easier than Vaadin for the simple reason that you control the markup. Vaadin hides the markup from you and generates elements with weird IDs and structures so it is harder to customize the look. Just remember this when making your decision.
I am currently working with Wicket and I have worked in the pass with Vaadin. I wil be short in my observations:
Vaadin is entitled to be free but IMO, is not so beautiful like that. If you need support, help, documentation for that painful and tricky problems that you encounter, then you are screwed because you do not have so good documentation/community when compared with Apache Wicket. Vaadin have guys to help you, but you have to pay for it.;
To program in wicket you need to be a strong programmer. Vaadin also requires good Java knowledge but you can easily do some spaghetti code if you want (just saying, not doing..);
Apache Wicket really separate the web technologies (Javascript, HTML, etc.) from the framework technology (Java). Vaadin also try to do it, but IMO is not so elegant and transparent on that.
Appart from that, we are talking about two different types of frameworks, two different approach, which have pros and cons that I advice you to search and compare and see what really fits your needs.
Edit: Oh, and about the look and feel, for instance you always have Wicket Bootstrap
Also do notice that even though Vaadin base framework is free, for some additional functionality you might need to buy extensions.
Ex - If you need to integrate a good charting solution such as Highcharts, you'd have to pay and buy the vaadin charts extension (even though highcharts is available free for FOSS apps, the vaadin charts plugin built on that is not given free for FOSS apps).
Thank you for your question.
The answer is short and simple
Vaadin is a great tool for java developers who needs to develop web apps, but it is a powerful WAR Machine if you have moderate javascript knowledge, and some basic css skils.
Vaadin is not slow, it is even faster than React and Angular.
If your app is slow, it's because you designed it wrong, and that's true to any framework you use.
Keep in mind this, Vaadin uses web components, so most of the UI is built on the client, no heavy rendering on the server
In your case you said you don't have css knowledge, two options:
Use Vaadin, or hire frontend developer.
I am a web developer for more than 10 years, and I have started as a php developer and a javascript developer.
I can tell you that once I've got into Vaadin, I can not develop another way.
What to choose depends primarily on the business requirements (see points 2 and 4 of your question)
However, if I go the Vaadin way:
I will loose the ability to create UI declaratively.
You can try using the ZK framework - similar to Vaadin with a declarative user interface in XML
I would like to write a somewhat complex web gui application.
It will be used to edit certain content by displaying panels and allowing the user to drag items to edit the content.
The explanation is somewhat abstract, but the point is that i'm looking for a modern gui writing technology, the more standard it is the better odds of me finding information and samples to using it.
I've been using JavaFaces to write some simple web pages and have taken a look at RichFaces for purposes of writing the app described above.
I would love to hear recommendation of similar technologies (For example - What was used to write this website?)
Thank you!!!
Update: Thanks for the answers so far, Since I was asked for more clarification I'll try to explain the use of the app:
It will be used to edit a complex script. There will be one panel with the actions of the scripts (The phases) and the other panel will show the content of the currently selected action. To each action type there will be a different set of attributes to modify.
You will be able to reorder actions by dragging them to a new location (Kinda like powerpoint slides organizer or flickr photo organizer) and also copy them that way.
The content of the action attribute panel will be able to display various types of content such as html text and buttons and all kinds of stuff.
Hope that helps. Thanks Again!
Update2: After reading this StackOverflow Thread I'm leaning towards RichFaces for it's vast support and standardization.
It seems you need a RIA. The Java worlds offers the following options:
Google Web Toolkit - a powerful RIA technology, which will require you to go through a steep learning curve. Nice component frameworks are SmartGWT, gwt-ext and ExtGWT. In my opinion all of them have some drawbacks, but in your case you might not observe them.
RichFaces - quite powerful as well, and since you have JSF experience, I'd recommend this.
ZK - never used it and I don't like some aspects of it (at least a while ago when I last checked it), but it's still an option.
Echo3 - similar to GWT in the way of development, but very different in the actual result. I'm not sure, however, whether it's still in development
JavaFX - if you are adventurous, and your application won't be used by the open public, try it.
ASP.NET MVC was used to write this site.
To your question: you should use the technology you like. If you've used to Java, you may wish to explore various MVC frameworks for that. Or you can try out new unfamiliar to you (yet) technologies.
Take a look to GWT and SmartGWT. Together are quite a powerful combination to write RIA webapps.
An interesting framework that I would be glad if I had the time to look deeper into is Cappuccino. Look at 280Slides for an example.
Flex is also nice open source option to create Rich Internet Applications. If you would like to stick to the JavaScript then you can use JQuery, YUI etc
There is also one very interesting thing called Vaadin check it http://demo.vaadin.com/sampler/
ICEfaces is one possibility. Demos here.
I used richfaces including drag and drop functionality, realy nice to offer good usability.
If you like the Java Web Technologies take a look at zk. It promises the same things as ICEFaces. I don't know if it can live up to that promises but IceFaces coul certainly not for me.
ZK should enable you to build your web app like a common swing app.
I'd suggest that you do not invest into technologies/frameworks which are based on integration of browser side ajax capabilities with server side frameworks if you'll need advanced functionality in the browser.
What is advanced and what is not is a completely different topic of course, but just to give you a heads up, as you start facing more and more complex UI requirements, you'll discover that the connectivity to back end framework (like JSF) will become more of a problem than a capability. Especially with things like JSF lifecycle, and most of the server side frameworks being based on the idea of an HTTP post (for client-server communication), you'll have issues.
An example: you'll be requested to develop a very specific UI widget that has drag and drop capability. If the Ajax-jsf integration framework of your choice does not contain this widget, your problem is born at this point. You'll start looking for ways of injecting data into existing channels, and it will get messy.
To avoid further speculation, let me just repeat that if you are sure that your chosen technology setup will give you 90%+ of the capabilities you'll need, that is ok. If you end up developing too much custom stuff, then consider an integration between a powerful client side (javascript or flex or silverlight) layer and a simpler server side layer (resteasy etc) Initial development may not be as fast as the other options, but if you'll need flexibility, this will end up being a much cleaner setup. I'd suggest you take a look at DOJO, and ExtGWT .
Cheers
Seref
It looks like XHTML + JavaScript could be enough for the dragging & dropping functionality you describe. This means you can use just about any web framework of your choice. If you need frequent asynchronous server calls (AJAX) then GWT is the most standard Java framework I think, although it has its peculiarities. Personally I like Wicket because it does not use XML configurations, relies heavily on code and has a nice community around it. Wicket also offers good AJAX support btw.
Greetings ,
I have been using GWT for few weeks and wanted a rich Table widget.I came across with SmartGWT library.
Can I use SmartGWT widgets same way I develop using GWT or is there any special things I need to know ?
thanks
Yes, you can adopt a single widget from SmartGWT, it does have caveats.
As another poster pointed out, you will be loading most of the core SmartClient runtime. You can avoid loading parts of the SmartClient runtime that you do not need by inheriting the SmartGwtNoScript module and including only the underlying SmartClient modules you actually use (basically Core, Foundation, Grids).
This is still going to be a large grid component, so think it through.
Are your users on high speed connections? Then they'll never notice, go for it.
Do they use the application for a while, or use it frequently? Then the one-time download is worth it because the SmartGWT grid does a good job of cutting down on network requests during actual use:
http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/#grid_adaptive_filter_featured_category
Do you have end users that need or could use 'livegrid'-style load on demand, full-row customizable inline editing, frozen columns, dynamic grouping, adaptive inline filtering, expandable rows, maybe some combination of these features all at once? Then it's worth it in order to deliver a better application, make users more productive or sell more product.
Just need a basic table display? Then yes, it's overkill.
The poster that said this is not possible was factually incorrect and that answer should be voted down.
You would not be able to just choose a widget from SmartGWT as they rely on the rest of the framework. SmartGWT is a thin wrapper using JSNI around the SmartClient library. This is a nice library, but you need to adopt it all or none.
I believe this misses the point of GWT as you are just wrapping Javascript, so if Google adds support for another browser, you will not be able to support it SmartClient does. Also, you miss all the new benefits of Code Splitting etc as the JS library will always download in full. You may be able to split the GWT code though.
ExtGWT is another choice. This is a full Java implementation. It's still an all or nothing approach, but at least it does leverage the GWT compiler to the full.
Do make sure you check the licenses of each as I believe the SmartGWT one is a bit more liberal that ExtGWT.
There is always the widgets in the GWT Incubator and GWT Mosaic projects. These are written to be very tightly knitted to GWT. Indeed the code in the Incubator may find its way into GWT when it matures. There is a nice table widget in the Incubator I believe.
I hope this helps a bit.
Essentially, yes. You may also consider Ext GWT (http://www.extjs.com/products/gxt), which is the same thing - a set of rich wrappers around GWT classes.
Yes.You can use smartgwt.But do not combine GWT and smartGWT.Adding smartgwt widget in GWT widget is not supported very well.You can try Advanced GWT also.
http://advanced-gwt.sourceforge.net/demo/index.html
Iam a great fan of javascript frameworks especially jQuery .I have always wanted to design sites like "plurk.com" but i know that it needs very huge lines of javascript.so that shut me off.But since i came to know GWT , i really want to test it out and want to ask you if it makes our job easier to develop complex things than with the javascript or its frameworks .Which one would you prefer ?
I think a few of the answers on this question are quite un-informed, and I suspect that the people answering them have never used GWT on large scale projects. Yes GWT is a great way to do large AJAX websites, and for large complex sites, involving a back end as well, it kicks things like JQuery up and down the park. The way I always look at it is that javascript on it's own is great for doing small client side things. When you need to do something more complex (like dynamic fields, popups, animations) you bring in something like JQuery or Prototype. When you want to take it one step further you go with GWT.
People assume that because you write it in Java, it's designed for back end developers to do front end development. It's not. Java is simply the language that they chose, mainly because it's widely used, statically typed and there are lots of good editors out there for it.
I don't buy the leaky abstraction theory either, it doesn't try to fully abstract out the HTML elements, as it gives you direct access to both native javascript and the DOM if you choose to use those.
In short we've built very complex sites (one of which was featured on the GWT blog) in GWT, and also using other libraries like JQuery. I can tell you with 100% confidence that once you get your head around GWT it kills those other frameworks dead for complex tasks. It also has some great built in things that help make things better, and even does some things that no other framework supports (like the magic it can do with images). See this blog post for more details:
http://googlewebtoolkit.blogspot.com/2007/10/epo-builder-built-with-gwt.html
Few things scare me like "generated Javascript". The Law of Leaky Abstractions has got to be doubly true in these cases.
Writing effective cross-browser javascript is a tricky process of continuous refinement. Trying to decipher where some generated, obscured Javascript is going wrong is a major headache. It's bad enough fixing bugs in the pure JS libraries.
To me, GWT is a trick aimed at allowing backend developers to write front-end, in-browser code. Unfortunately, the realities of modern web apps mean you just have to know Javascript and the DOM. Something's going to break, and you're going to need to know why.
I think you're better off picking a good javascript library like jquery or prototype, and learning that well. Those libraries abstract away the sort of stuff that SHOULD be abstracted away and is unlikely to break in edge cases, like array operations and AJAX requests.
Yes, it does, since you'll be using Java and not Javascript.
Superb IDEs, static code analysis, searching and refactoring - all this will make your life much easier on large projects.
No. It doesn't.
It doesn't remove the complexity, it just makes it possible for you to deal with it from a Java Perspective. Since that gives you all the Tooling available from Java... that alone might make it worthwhile.
JavaScript IDEs are getting better and better though, and typically if you're using a Framework like jQuery or Prototype, then you're probably going to find it easier than dealing with a heavy weight abstraction layer like GWT.
My personal preference is to take the pure JavaScript approach, but that's because I like being able to work more closely to metal, and I'm disciplined enough to tame my JavaScript cats.
With GWT, you're not actually writing JavaScript; it's entire value proposition is that you can write Java that it will compile down to JavaScript for you.
I'm working on a project that has used GWT to pretty good effect. It's a good choice for us since we're all primarily Java developers working on internal tools. I can't speak to how useful it is for large end-user sites.
One advantage I particularly appreciate is the seamless object serialization and deserialization. Not only are the details of XML-RPC abstracted away, but since the same Java code is compiled to byte code for the server and javascript for the browser, you can code almost as if the server and client were running in separate class loaders in the same JVM. For instance, you can construct a Java object on the server, send it to the browser as the return value from an RPC service call and the browser code can then use the identical Java class to manipulate the object you just returned. Likewise, parameters to RPC calls can be constructed as Java objects, with the server receiving an identical Java object on the other end. All this without mucking about in the details of (de)serialization.