I'm agree with that.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I see Scriptaculous as a
competition of ExtJS; i.e. a rich JavaScript AJAX based
framework.
If you forgot the gwt-ext that I mentioned before. Why not
ExtJS ?
Alejandro.
David Hustace wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Alejandro Galue wrote:
>
>> The demo is just amazing.
>
> Exciting so!
>
>
> <biased-commentary required-reading="false" >
>
> For each of our 3 previous DevJam's, we've explored richer WebUI
> development. During DevJam 1 tried using Scriptaculous and prototyped
> (pun intended) the coolest NMS feature ever, "The Dynamic RRD Graph
> Designer" and it was good. It was cool technology but wasn't the "no
> brainer" solution for richer OpenNMS UI development that we found Spring
> to to be for our daemon development. During DevJam 2, we worked more on
> the UI backend with the goal of making the webapp more testable and
> under-control and improving upon the MVC pattern... hence, Spring MVC,
> since the OpenNMS daemon architecture future is set in Spring. DevJam 3
> we shot for the moon and attempted to get Maps rewritten with GWT and
> Canvas. We learned a lot and worked very hard to get GWT to be the Map
> technology and turned to Canvas when it became apparent that wasn't
> going to work.
>
> Okay, I've been looking and hacking around for quite a while now
> exploring different rich WebUI technologies trying to find one that will
> help us to *simplify* the WebUI overhaul. For me, the key factor has
> been what framework/technology works best with the technologies already
> chosen for OpenNMS' architecture. The criteria I've been using:
>
> 0) Okay, it has to be cool technology... such as reverse AJAX
> 1) Open Source (of course)
> 2) Allowed me to write more Java code in the back-end rather then heavy
> client-side JavaScript code
> 3) Since we're heavy Spring, a technology that has indications of
> supporting or blatant support for Spring
> 4) An active community
>
> Number 0 and 1 are obvious. Number 2 gives an OpenNMS developer
> momentum because we are Java coders not UI developers. Number 3 won't
> show up on your list of criteria until you start attempting to make
> something that you can easily *test* *and build* when developing
> OpenNMS. (BTW: We really need to get to the point of not accepting code
> for new features unless there are unit tests. When we start refactoring
> for OSGi and the like, not having tests is going to bite in the...). So
> numbers 1 and 2 helps make OpenNMS sustainable, too. Number 4 means
> that there must be something to the technology and makes it more fun.
> If this isn't going to be fun, why would you want do it?
>
> So what about GWT? My experience is that there are amazing widgets that
> you can use, yes. But go through and look at the dashboard code and its
> build process.
>
> One great advantage of GWT is the Java -> JavaScript compiler and that
> the code you write can run against any HTTP server. This is great for a
> portable UI application development but it is not something that we even
> remotely require/desire.
>
> Another limitation of the Java -> JavaScript compiler is that we can
> only use a subset of the Java 1.4 libraries (27 classes, 11 interfaces,
> and 18 exception types) last I looked.
>
> A GWT application can run completely with out server communications and
> small GWT apps are usually quite spiffy. However, all of our UI is
> going to be dependent on a "middle tier" or a supporting GWT servlet and
> making it subject to the same latency as any other AJAX technology.
> Also, distributing the application logic using GWT's transparent RPC
> invocation is a concern for security. (See DWR's advanced CSRF protection)
>
> Two of the biggest limitations is 1) that GWT forces us to make the UI
> one giant application. This may have changed but this was impractical
> after we did the dashboard and we attempted to start doing other GWT
> components in OpenNMS. And 2) the Java -> JavaScript cross compiler are
> *proprietary* binaries.
>
> I'm still in the DWR camp: http://getahead.org/dwr/overview/dwr and I
> think the technology is advanced enough to sustain our development
> efforts and young enough for them to be excited about OpenNMS choosing
> their technology.
>
> I have more details about my DWR proposal coming to the OGP DevJam thread.
>
> </biased-commentary>
>
>
> David Hustace
> The OpenNMS Group, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Hustace
> The OpenNMS Group, Inc.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please read the OpenNMS Mailing List FAQ:
> http://www.opennms.org/index.php/Mailing_List_FAQ
>
> opennms-devel mailing list
>
> To *unsubscribe* or change your subscription options, see the bottom of this page:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opennms-devel
--
___________________________________
Ing. Alejandro Galue.
SYNC Consultores C.A.
agalue@...
http://www.sync.com.ve
Av. Libertador, Torre Maracaibo
Piso 8, Oficina F, La Campiña
Caracas - Venezuela
Telf. : +58 (212) 762-85-55
762-30-12
762-86-93
Cel. : +58 (414) 134-47-23
Fax. : +58 (212) 762-66-71
Skype : alejandro.galue
MSN : agalue@...
___________________________________
|
