JBoss adopts GWT (Google Web Toolkit)

[supernovasoftware.com]

See
http://blog.softwhere.org/archives/567

The world doesn't need another Java framework for developing rich AJAX apps. so we've decided to go with what we think is a real leader - Google Web Toolkit.

What does this mean for Richfaces?

Q. Does this mean that Red Hat doesn't care about Rich Faces / ajax4jsf anymore ?
A. Not at all - for many Java developers - GWT is a complimentary technology for others it might be an alternative. We're not prescribing one particular approach - we're supporting what we believe are the best technologies for developers. Our commitment to Rich Faces and ajax4jsf continues.

But for how long?

JBoss and in fact Red Hat has been using GWT for some time now :

1. Red Hat's IT has been deploying GWT since 1.0 RC1 as part of www.redhat.com applications for our online store, customer center and product activation.
2. The Drools / BRMS UI uses GWT extensively - more details here
3. We have some initial integration with Seam 2.1 - more details here

Why didn't the choose Richfaces?

I would like to open the discussion for how this will affect Richfaces and the pros and cons of GWT vs Richfaces.

[sergeysmirnov]

The keyword here is JSF. RichFaces is, and only, an extension for JSF. GWT has nothing to do with JSF. GWT and JSF have developing paradigms that are far away from each other.
We offered the integration framework to plug in GWT into JSF a couple of years ago (http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=GWTandJSF). People were just not interested. From both sides. GWT was too primitive from the JSF point of view (GUI set). JSF was overhead from the GWT point of view.

JBoss announced about one year ago that JBoss Seam might work independently from JSF environment. Why it is a still a surprise for you now?

RichFaces will make sense until JSF is an actual technology. Upcoming JSF 2.0 still keep the same development parading that JSF 1.2 has. There is no place for GWT there.

Do you thing that Red Hat will stop to promote RichFaces and start to speak only about new wave? Hmm. Guess which version of RichFaces was announced on the theserverside.com last time OR how many times the word "RichFaces" was mentioned on the RedHat/JBoss stand and give away brochures on JavaOne 2008.

[supernovasoftware.com]

I love Richfaces and my application has hundreds of pages based on facelets and richfaces.

I don't want to even think of the time to migrate.

But, for example. I would like to try the jBPM web console in my app, but they seem to be focusing on the GWT version.

Since I am using solely richfaces a JSF version would be more valuable to my application.

I have switched out front end and back end technologies a few times in the lifetime of this application(about 5 years).

I only wish a long lifetime for RF.

[kphilipp]

"supernovasoftware.com" wrote:
I only wish a long lifetime for RF.

In my humble opinion in this case there is a need to extend and to keep the so-called RichFacesCookbook

http://www.jboss.org/community/docs/DOC-11852

up-to-date. The RichFaces' learning curve is not half bad. It is a little bit wearisome to search the RichFaces Users Forum for an appropriate solution of an issue. WE, the community, should take care for the maintanence of the cookbook.

[kukeltje]

"SergeySmirnov" wrote:
The keyword here is JSF. RichFaces is, and only, an extension for JSF. GWT has nothing to do with JSF. GWT and JSF have developing paradigms that are far away from each other.

Yes, that is totally clear. Amongst which is the Java people vs webpeople (designers) right?

"SergeySmirnov" wrote:
JBoss announced about one year ago that JBoss Seam might work independently from JSF environment. Why it is a still a surprise for you now?

That is no surprise to me and probably also not for Jason. It is the fact that JBoss seems to have made the choice (to a certain extend initially) to start developing their own apps based on GWT. Do not underestimate that signal that is send out with this: We choose GWT over JSF. You could introduce a self fulfilling prophecy/downward spiral with this:
- Interest in using Richfaces goes down becauseJBoss does not use it themselves
- Interest in developing Richfaces goes down because less people are interested in using it
- Interest in using it goes down because quality/progress goes down

"SergeySmirnov" wrote:

RichFaces will make sense until JSF is an actual technology. Upcoming JSF 2.0 still keep the same development parading that JSF 1.2 has. There is no place for GWT there.

No actual technology? kind of bold statement from one of thecore exadel/richfaces guys... Can you elaborate a little? That is probably what Jason also wants to know.

"SergeySmirnov" wrote:

Do you thing that Red Hat will stop to promote RichFaces and start to speak only about new wave? Hmm. Guess which version of RichFaces was announced on the theserverside.com last time OR how many times the word "RichFaces" was mentioned on the RedHat/JBoss stand and give away brochures on JavaOne 2008.

Maybe not directly, but as mentioned before, do not underestimate the indirect communication because of what JBoss uses themselves...

Mind you, I'm not against GWT, it is just that in the companies I've worked for, the paradigm of creating userinterfaces fully in java or with JSF has not set in for several reasons. Nor am I sure it will in short to mid term, at least not in those companies.

What about initiatives of combining the two? http://unrealities.com/seamgwt/article_0.2.html seems more promising due to some improvements over time compared to when you wrote your article.

[kukeltje]

"supernovasoftware.com" wrote:
.

But, for example. I would like to try the jBPM web console in my app, but they seem to be focusing on the GWT version.

The jBPM console was never realy intended to be embedded, nor will the new version be. That is why I proposed long ago to build a console based on reusable jsf components. That initiative went wrong due to complexity of e.g. combining it with gravel. Making ui's did not become easier. Compare it to using jsf components separately with a4j instead of having parts of the ajax functionality IN your components.

I still want to develop new components, maybe based on jbpm4jsf... anyone?

"supernovasoftware.com" wrote:
I only wish a long lifetime for RF.

+1

[sergeysmirnov]

"kukeltje" wrote:

"SergeySmirnov" wrote:

RichFaces will make sense until JSF is an actual technology. Upcoming JSF 2.0 still keep the same development parading that JSF 1.2 has. There is no place for GWT there.

No actual technology? kind of bold statement from one of thecore exadel/richfaces guys... Can you elaborate a little? That is probably what Jason also wants to know.

What statement is need to be elaborated?

1. JSF 2.0 will have the same development paradigm that JSF 1.2 has
or
2. GWT does not match the JSF 1.2 dev paradigm and not going to match it in the future as far as the statement #1 exists

[rahul_maha]

I have worked on GWT and JSF using RF and Facelets, developing complex GUI with node centric approach is nightmare.

GWT conceptually is ok, but making good looking complex screens is v challenging.

JSF 2 follows templating approach PDL that is Facelets and that is the best way to develop guis what GUI developers can understand.

Modifying a node centric approach GUI is v difficult.

I think JSF 2 has all good things like AJAX + PDL + Custom components dev easy (EzComp). Community viewpoint and adoption will have a dramatic change in coming months.

Already so many new people are adopting JSF every day thanks to RF and Icefaces with Ajax support.

Good looking guis is the key, sexy skin is what sells and RF does a good job in this area.

Good thing about GWT is most of it converts to client side code which is excellent, but node centric gui development like Swing is something not at all good.

[kukeltje]

Sergey,

I meant the statement "RichFaces will make sense until JSF is an actual technology."

I read here that you say JSF is not an actual techonology... so what is it then?

[sergeysmirnov]

"kukeltje" wrote:
Sergey,

I meant the statement "RichFaces will make sense until JSF is an actual technology."

I read here that you say JSF is not an actual techonology... so what is it then?

That is intersting. I am not an expert in English of course, but does the "will" mean something from the past?

[supernovasoftware.com]

Will refers to future.

I think the confusion is from the use of actual. The most common usage is 2a and 3 from below. You usage is in line with 1 below. I am a native English speaker and had never seen it used that way.

Thanks for the English lesson. ;)

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actual

1obsolete : active
2 a: existing in act and not merely potentially b: existing in fact or reality <actual and imagined conditions> c: not false or apparent <actual costs>
3: existing or occurring at the time : current <caught in the actual commission of a crime>

[kukeltje]

It was more the 'until it is'.... My interpretation of this, also as a non-native English speaker (native Dutch, but also German, French and a little Spanish) is 'until it becomes', meaning it is not now.... Sorry for the confusion (or enlightenment)

[sergeysmirnov]

Ok, I see. The double translation made things up-side-down.
Let me do another try:

while(JSF is alive && this is true) { RichFaces.makes(sense); }

[supernovasoftware.com]

Must better. Everyone here speaks in Java and XML anyway. ;)

[kukeltje]

LOL....

Must better?? hahaha