design to implement is laughable at best. GXT has just barely enough
good things to make it worth using. BARELY. I keep their crappy
library segregated behind interfaces and wrap all their even types
waiting for the day I can rip that giant pile of crap out of my
Tell me without going to the docs or drilling into their source what
events a GXT button can handle. You can't by just looking at their
API. You want to extend some of their controls, you're screwed
because they, for not reason I'm able to discern, have tons of private
variables with no getter/setter. If you want slow crappy code where
you're constantly forced to go to the documentation then use GXT. If
you want to extend one of their classes you could easily be copy/
pasting a ton of their code/heirarchy in order to get some minimal
On Sep 29, 9:06 am, markM <mark.a.mccon...@pfizer.com> wrote:
> I think we often times forget too that folks are producing these
> products for us for free. One can always pay for GWT EXT if they
> On Sep 28, 12:38 pm, Brett Thomas <brettptho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not to mention none of those three things have to do with "API Design"...
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Thomas Broyer <t.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 28, 4:29 pm, Greg Dougherty <dougherty.greg...@mayo.edu> wrote:
> > > > Well, look at the JavaDoc for extended by
> > > > com.google.gwt.dom.client.Style.Unit (AKA Style.Unit). I don't think
> > > > it's possible to write worse "Documentation" than that, other than
> > > > perhaps writing something that is actively and consistently wrong.
> > > Which doc are you talking about? the "CSS length units" part? (what
> > > more should it say? if you don't know what a CSS length unit is, you'd
> > > better stop doing web dev; or start learning CSS) the values and
> > > valueOf part? (they're not in the code, they come with the "enum"
> > > type, just like "extends java.lang.Enum<Style.Unit>")
> > > > I assume people actually test code before it gets added to the
> > > > project. I assume those text cases are a pretty through workout of
> > > > all the code's claimed features. It's an Open Source project, so I
> > > > assume there's no commercial reason to keep those test cases hidden.
> > > You mean these test cases?
> > >http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
> > > > Given that, why are there no *LayoutPanels in Showcase?
> > > Fixed:http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/detail?r=8766
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Google Web Toolkit" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org<google-web-toolkit%2Bunsubs email@example.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to email@example.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.