As has been previously stated, there are multiple solutions to an ever-changing problem - rich internet applications inside the browser - but I think Google have come up with a clever solution in GWT, not just as a front-end UI framework but also in terms of a solution to scalability, maintainability and deployment.
To make anything work in a real environment, a GWT front-end is going to have to talk to a back-end somewhere. If Java really is your thing, you get RPC talking to Tomcat out of the box, or in my case I chose a REST solution. As a tool to complement your other frameworks, GWT never gets in your way, allows you to work at the DOM level where necessary, and fits in well alongside other 3rd party solutions.
Mozilla have their solution with XUL although you are stuck inside Gecko, and who knows what is going on with Microsoft and XAML, and of course there is Flash with its install base. However, with GWT, Google are producing cross-browser compatible output across all major browsers and they picked Java to do that. Using an established language does have benefits (existing frameworks/expertise/unit testing/debugging) but it is how they use that language that makes it clever.
http://riflethru.com/ is an interface for searching eBay that I developed using GWT, as is the iPhone version. When first picking up the toolkit, the article I had read stated "they have taken HTML, Javascript and CSS and turned it into byte-code", and upon further inspection, it turned out to be true. In my experience, GWT is versatile, capable and on the march.
The web is reaching everywhere so a solid HTML solution like theirs sits well in different environments and devices, but Java is certainly not for everyone. My guess is that this has little to do with the limited adoption, of which GWT does not appear to be suffering as a result. In addition, the publicity from Google I/O will fuel the fire, no doubt, and I see the YouTube figures on their presentations are numbering in the 1000's, although I had to watch Deferred Binding 3 times myself.
> A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me.
With the time for the adverts removed, a 30 minute show on network TV probably amounts to about 16 actual minutes of content, itself made up from a recipe: the introduction, maybe a highlight at the beginning, some filler, the "main attraction", some more filler, don't wait, we'll be right back, for some more filler.
A two minute portion of that show may amount to the "main attraction". There's a lot of work that goes into creating shows around very little content, but if people are just going to watch the interesting bits online, what is going to happen to their viewing figures?
Robin - Remote Operating System Built in Netscape Created By: Randall Knutson Version: 0.02
Note the version number, and I don't think it is actively developed, but Robin appears to be someone's pet project that runs a remote desktop written in XUL/HTML/JS/CSS.
I've worked a lot with XUL, but am starting to think that perhaps GWT is a more sensible approach to developing web apps. To present a web front end, XUL on it's own doesn't cut it, as the masses do not run a Mozilla browser, but maintaining XUL + HTML versions side by side means twice as much work.
What is the future for XUL? Are there plans to allow XUL to perform over remote HTTP, fixing the current security problems?
It seems to me that a lot of work has already gone into XUL and so much was achieved in this area, yet few advancements have been made over the last few years. Many believe that there is a true opportunity here to provide a platform for networked application delivery, but will XUL be a true competitor to Flex and/or XAML?
I am unfortunately very busy, and really don't have a lot of time to watch TV or movies -- so being able to fire up a recorded copy "The Simpsons" on my laptop (without the bother of downloading a torrent or ripping a DVD) would make it easier for me to enjoy those few minutes I do have.
The article omits any serious tests and solutions to integrating Apple hardware/software into a Windows networked environment. The major issues described were resolved either by running Win2K under Virtual PC or by magic fairies that inexplicably established network connections. In fact, there are so many "unsolved mysteries" and "I don't know" statements, I find it unfair that the author points out everyone else's ignorance when his own is too obvious to ignore.
It sounds like he made a poorly researched hardware decision, purchasing a Powerbook for work purposes without knowing whether or not he would be able to integrate it, use existing office systems, run proprietary PC-only applications. The IT infrastructure of his organisation sounds like Active Directory this and Exchange Server that, and by the fact that they recognised it as a Mac (rather than a Unix box) leads me to believe that they're not running too many flavours of anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
As has been previously stated, there are multiple solutions to an ever-changing problem - rich internet applications inside the browser - but I think Google have come up with a clever solution in GWT, not just as a front-end UI framework but also in terms of a solution to scalability, maintainability and deployment.
To make anything work in a real environment, a GWT front-end is going to have to talk to a back-end somewhere. If Java really is your thing, you get RPC talking to Tomcat out of the box, or in my case I chose a REST solution. As a tool to complement your other frameworks, GWT never gets in your way, allows you to work at the DOM level where necessary, and fits in well alongside other 3rd party solutions.
Mozilla have their solution with XUL although you are stuck inside Gecko, and who knows what is going on with Microsoft and XAML, and of course there is Flash with its install base. However, with GWT, Google are producing cross-browser compatible output across all major browsers and they picked Java to do that. Using an established language does have benefits (existing frameworks/expertise/unit testing/debugging) but it is how they use that language that makes it clever.
http://riflethru.com/ is an interface for searching eBay that I developed using GWT, as is the iPhone version. When first picking up the toolkit, the article I had read stated "they have taken HTML, Javascript and CSS and turned it into byte-code", and upon further inspection, it turned out to be true. In my experience, GWT is versatile, capable and on the march.
The web is reaching everywhere so a solid HTML solution like theirs sits well in different environments and devices, but Java is certainly not for everyone. My guess is that this has little to do with the limited adoption, of which GWT does not appear to be suffering as a result. In addition, the publicity from Google I/O will fuel the fire, no doubt, and I see the YouTube figures on their presentations are numbering in the 1000's, although I had to watch Deferred Binding 3 times myself.
> A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me.
With the time for the adverts removed, a 30 minute show on network TV probably amounts to about 16 actual minutes of content, itself made up from a recipe: the introduction, maybe a highlight at the beginning, some filler, the "main attraction", some more filler, don't wait, we'll be right back, for some more filler.
A two minute portion of that show may amount to the "main attraction". There's a lot of work that goes into creating shows around very little content, but if people are just going to watch the interesting bits online, what is going to happen to their viewing figures?
Robin - Remote Operating System Built in Netscape
Created By: Randall Knutson
Version: 0.02
Note the version number, and I don't think it is actively developed, but Robin appears to be someone's pet project that runs a remote desktop written in XUL/HTML/JS/CSS.
I've worked a lot with XUL, but am starting to think that perhaps GWT is a more sensible approach to developing web apps. To present a web front end, XUL on it's own doesn't cut it, as the masses do not run a Mozilla browser, but maintaining XUL + HTML versions side by side means twice as much work.
What is the future for XUL? Are there plans to allow XUL to perform over remote HTTP, fixing the current security problems?
/dave
It seems to me that a lot of work has already gone into XUL and so much was achieved in this area, yet few advancements have been made over the last few years. Many believe that there is a true opportunity here to provide a platform for networked application delivery, but will XUL be a true competitor to Flex and/or XAML?
I am unfortunately very busy, and really don't have a lot of time to watch TV or movies -- so being able to fire up a recorded copy "The Simpsons" on my laptop (without the bother of downloading a torrent or ripping a DVD) would make it easier for me to enjoy those few minutes I do have.
/dave
$70K well spent, then.
The article omits any serious tests and solutions to integrating Apple hardware/software into a Windows networked environment. The major issues described were resolved either by running Win2K under Virtual PC or by magic fairies that inexplicably established network connections. In fact, there are so many "unsolved mysteries" and "I don't know" statements, I find it unfair that the author points out everyone else's ignorance when his own is too obvious to ignore.
It sounds like he made a poorly researched hardware decision, purchasing a Powerbook for work purposes without knowing whether or not he would be able to integrate it, use existing office systems, run proprietary PC-only applications. The IT infrastructure of his organisation sounds like Active Directory this and Exchange Server that, and by the fact that they recognised it as a Mac (rather than a Unix box) leads me to believe that they're not running too many flavours of anything else.
/dave