[xwiki-devs] GWT 1.4 upgrade

[Vincent Massol]

On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:51 PM, ancapaula.luca at xwiki.com wrote:

> Because from the reliability point of view the native gwt solution is
> better than a third-party library and produces cleaner code while the
> styling drawback can easily be ameliorated, we have chosen it from  
> the two
> and applied it for the gwt 1.4 upgrade branch.

ok, fine with me, makes sense especially with how GWT is progressing  
fast.

Thanks for posting back.

-Vincent

> We also didn't get any response from the gwt-tk mailing list  
> regarding a
> future release.
>
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> We have planned the GWT 1.4 upgrade for the next XWatch milestone  
>> at the
>> end of march. For this, we need to make a decision regarding the  
>> web-gwt
>> dependencies (for the moment, the xwiki gwt dialogs rely on the gwt- 
>> tk
>> library that does not yet have a release for gwt 1.4) so we must  
>> choose
>> from:
>> - using another library to provide this functionality, particularly  
>> the
>> MyGwt library
>> 	pros: nice looks and good API + the possibility of using the library
>> components in including projects.
>> 	cons: code changes required by the clean switch (updating all  
>> involved
>> classes to use library API instead of GWT API), the lack of a maven
>> repository with all available MyGwt versions (only 0.5.0 rc). As  
>> well,
>> while testing, I experienced a couple of rendering issues (caused,
>> seemingly by the use of the strict or xhtml DTD).
>> - using the native gwt modal dialogs introduced in 1.4:
>> 	pros: not styled (we totally control the styling process and can  
>> build an
>> uniform look); widgets consistency, at least at this level. A big
>> advantage is that the web-gwt module will not depend on any other  
>> library
>> anymore.
>> 	cons:  not styled, the usual GWT API (which can be poor in some
>> situations); GWT also has some problems caused by the standard mode
>> interpretation in browsers (caused by the doctype declaration) but in
>> this situation the code seems to be stable.
>>
>> What do you think?