Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Releases AJAX Framework

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

327

maquina writes "Google released a new AJAX framework based on Java. From Google's mouth: "Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is a Java software development framework that makes writing AJAX applications like Google Maps and Gmail easy for developers who don't speak browser quirks as a second language." This impressive framework promises to make AJAX available to the masses and is one more step towards Google becoming the de facto Internet platform provider."

cancel ×

327 comments

Google: (5, Interesting)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349862)

Your source of, vangaurd of and now creator of all your information.

Re:Google: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15349909)

And in some other news, somebody at Google wipes their arse

Re:Google: (0, Troll)

Trigun (685027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349951)

Such is the dynamic web, I guess. You take a dynamic news site, throw a dynamic company at it, sprinkle liberally with a few trolls and fanboys, and you get a perpetual P.R. machine.

Re:Google: (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350002)

Who could take your mommy, sprinkle her with poo. Hump upon her butt and do you daddy's anus too?

The Google man can!
The Google man can!

The Google man can because he makes alot of farts and then he dumps on you.

The best feature of this toolkit (2, Interesting)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349887)

...is by far and above the fact that you are coding your website in Java, using their API and SWT-like objects, and the Javascript/Ajax is then generated from your classes.

I think Google is mostly responsible for launching the AJAX trend, and now they're moving in a brand new direction? Beautiful.

Oh and they even distributed half of the source code for the project in the JAR files.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (2)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349942)

So does that mean it effectively competes with the ".NET framework"? And what's an "internet platform" anyway? Is that just a term they invented to have something Google would be good at?

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (3, Interesting)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349961)

Just because the AJAX code is not hand coded doesn't mean Google is moving in a new direction. In fact they're moving forward more agressively in the same direction, and are just releasing tools to help everyone go the same way (especially the Google way).

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (5, Informative)

seizer (16950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349968)

It's not quite a "brand new direction" - Microsoft's Atlas product has been offering something along these lines for a while now (albeit still as a beta). You lay out controls visually in Visual Studio (or Express), and control them programmatically from .NET. It takes care of rendering them down to HTML + Javascript, and it's pretty much cross platform friendly.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

xbrownx (459399) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350013)

"a while now" is what, six months?

The last time I played around with Atlas, which may have been very early in it's beta cycle, there was still some level of necessary JS coding by the developer. Perhaps that has changed, which would be awesome...

Besides, I still don't think they are comparable - with ASP.NET, you are still coding in both ASPX and C# (or VB) files, meaning that you are getting your hands dirty with some HTML - this seems to be completely managed code.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

Decker-Mage (782424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350323)

If you can hang with Java, something that I've never managed to succeed in doing here. While I'm not thrilled with it, ASP.Net and C# are a bit more palatable and raw coding HTML is something I can do in my sleep (and frequently have). Well, I'm a dinosaur and it shows. Now where did I leave that Black Book.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15349970)

I personally find the way it handles remote prodecure calls to the server [google.com] the most interesting. Just define a serializable java class, you say? And GWT handles the rest, you say? Sign me up!

This is sexy stuff, people. :-)

The worst feature of this toolkit... (5, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349973)

...is that it's a closed-source, binary-only executable. Download page [google.com] :

The GWT Java-to-JavaScript compiler and hosted web browser are shipped binary-only and subject to the license below.

Re:The worst feature of this toolkit... (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350094)

So then what parts of it are released under the Apache License 2.0?

Re:The worst feature of this toolkit... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350137)

Um, read the link I provided. That's why it's there. It says very clearly that the class libraries are released under the Apache license, but not the actual compiler or hosted browser.

Another downside... (5, Interesting)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349995)

...is that it phones home [google.com] to Google.

When you use the Google Web Toolkit's hosted web browser, the application sends a request back to Google's servers to check to see if you are using the most recent version of the product. As a part of this request, Google will log usage data including a timestamp of the date and time you downloaded the Google Web Toolkit and the IP address for your computer. We won't log cookies or personal information about you, and we will use any data we log only in the aggregate to operate and improve the Google Web Toolkit and other Google Services. Please see the Google Privacy Policy for more information.

Re:Another downside... (5, Insightful)

avdp (22065) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350065)

As opposed to Firefox (and right about every modern application I've used), which doesn't? It's just checking if there is an update to download. And only in the "hosted web browser" which you don't even need to use. Jeez. Paranoid.

Re:Another downside... (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350315)

As opposed to Firefox (and right about every modern application I've used), which doesn't?

The apps I use do not (this includes Firefox). I'm doing "apt-get update" to check for new versions ;)

Oh, you meant "applications for MS-Windows" :)
That's what happens when you don't have a package management system. ;)

Seriously, why isn't MS doing that : when you install an app (MS or 3rd party), it writes somewhere a link to an internet repository, that will be checked when going to Control Panel -> Add/remove apps.

It's not like it's a Linuxism : QNX does that and IIRC, BeOS also did it, but - correct me if I'm wrong - it was more centralized, excluding 3rd parties (thinking of software wallet or something like that). What about MacOS X ?

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350007)

"I think Google is mostly responsible for launching the AJAX trend"
 
Er, nope. Hard as it is to believe, Microsoft were there first with the awesome Outlook Web Access which mimics Outlook, on a web page really, really well. This used their XMLHTTP ActiveX object which is also used extensively in Windows Update.
 
The rest happened from there really. Google is probably the best known current implementer of AJAX, but good as they are I certainly wouldn't say they launched it... and I certainly wish world + dog would stop releasing AJAX frameworks!

Nope - OWA was closed. (5, Informative)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350026)

Sorry, but I have to give it to someone other than Microsoft. While they did essentially invent the tech behind Ajax, the only major project they used it on was basically something that was closed. I don't mean source, but not open to the public. You only saw it if you had an organization using Outlook/Exchange in the first place, which still excluded a huge majority of people using the web. Had they ported hotmail to the OWA interface, that would have been a major revolution far greater than google maps or anything else. But they didn't.

Re:Nope - OWA was closed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350300)

They have ported hotmail to ajax, it's called windows live mail now.

live.com

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350039)

I guess when you said OWA "mimics Outlook..really, really well." you really meant to say "mimics Outlook..like a banana mimics a small, green Checkoslovakian traffic warden."

Which oddly enough describes almost all "Web 2.0" AJAX "applications".

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350083)

Microsoft might have provided the first XMLHttpRequest implementation and used it first, but it was Google that made it popular. Before Google Suggest (and later GMail) caught everybody's attention, it languished relatively unknown to most developers for years. Now you can't get away from it.

Sure, browser compatibility played a large part too, but even after Mozilla implemented XMLHttpRequest, I didn't see many people talking about it until Google started using it. So Microsoft might have launched XMLHttpRequest, but it was Google that launched the trend, which is what xbrownx said.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (0, Flamebait)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350014)

Is there a "censor your website" function as well?

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (5, Informative)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350116)

Here's a much better implementation of the same idea that's been available for some time now: http://zk1.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

It's not "beta" like this half-baked "me-too" from google, and it's open-source.Also commercial support is available it you want to pay for it.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

kahei (466208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350122)


I think Google is mostly responsible for launching the AJAX trend,
...and when you say AJAX trend, you mean the use of XmlHttpRequest, first thought of and implemented by Microsoft, to create responsive web applications that update only the necessary UI elements rather than the whole page, like Microsoft's Outlook Web, for which AJAX was invented.

Thank goodness there are true innovators like Google to prevent technology from suffocating under the Microsoft Blanket.

I guess I'm old fashioned enough to focus on who 'develops the technology' or just 'has the idea', rather than on who 'launches the trend'.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350213)

From my understanding it's even older than that. I remember utilizing remote scripting back in 2001 for an insurance quote web application.

Re:The best feature of this toolkit (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350265)

> you are coding your website in Java, using their API and SWT-like objects, and the Javascript/Ajax is then generated from your classes.

Which is also the greatest danger of such toolkits. Once you learn something like this, you know the framework but you know less and less about the underlying technologies. You can learn this framework, or you can learn ASP.NET, or Ruby on Rails, or whatever, which are all very different ways of accomplishing the same thing. I'm not saying that this is bad overall, since they all lead to productivity enhancement. But each framework has a considerable learning curve, leading to developers becoming more and more specialized and married to a particular implementation of a technology. This is not unlike the RAD tools of the past, where one could become very proficient in VB6 or MFC or the VCL, while losing more and more touch with the win32 API. I guess the trick is to try to keep up with the lower level technologies that these frameworks abstract.

I have yet to figure out AJAX (1, Insightful)

Council (514577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349892)

I keep trying to read the story, and my brain just keeps seeing GOOGLE AJAX WEB DEVELOPMENT and filling in XML RUBY ON RAILS TAGBLOGCAST WEB 2.0.

Re:I have yet to figure out AJAX (5, Funny)

DaoudaW (533025) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349952)

and my brain just keeps seeing GOOGLE AJAX WEB DEVELOPMENT

Maybe we should just call it GAWD for short!

Re:I have yet to figure out AJAX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15349978)

You forgot the most overused buzzword of 2006, slick.

Yawn (0, Troll)

Trimbo2 (661670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349893)

Is there a way to filter out stores from the homepage by keyword? AJAX would be on my filter list.

Re:Yawn (1)

kanzels (975208) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349897)

Why?

Re:Yawn (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349907)

Likely because it isn't a joke about an unfortunatly named Nintendo console.

Re:Yawn (5, Funny)

volsung (378) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350022)

To bring balance to the Force. For every crazed, frothing pusher of tech hype, there must be a sullen, ennui-laden detractor who either:
  • is bored by the new tech, and likes to proclaim so whenever possible.
  • did the same thing 5 years ago.
  • or thinks the technology is useless.

This is required by the Central Hype-Limit Theorem:

As the size of the sample increases, the average opinion of the group approaches the actual utility of the product in question.

Re:Yawn (1)

Trimbo2 (661670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349926)

Something about "stuff that matters".

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350307)

This should be easily possible with Greasemonkey http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]

Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (1, Interesting)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349895)

Yahoo has already done this, but apparently they don't have fanboys like Google. http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/ [yahoo.com]

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (4, Insightful)

segfault_0 (181690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349922)

That appears to be precanned Javascript,etc. that alot of people have done before. This is Java programming and debugging straight to 100% browser compatible HTML and Javascript. The only group larger than the google fanboy club is the google is smarter than me and i hate them club.

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (2, Funny)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350072)

And that includes Scott Adams [dilbert.com]

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350112)

The only group larger than the google fanboy club is the google is smarter than me and i hate them club.
You forgot about the rather large "people who don't think Google is a sentient being" club.

Yeah, right.. (5, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349944)

Yahoo has already done this

No, they haven't - at least not unless you have some other information you're not sharing.

From the Google site:
You write your front end in the Java programming language, and the GWT compiler converts your Java classes to browser-compliant JavaScript and HTML.

From the Yahoo link you provided:
To use a specific component from the YUI Library, include the path to that library in a <script> tag within your web page.

So, how is this the same thing?

Re:Yeah, right.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350218)

>

So...it's ASP.NET.

See previous posts about ATLAS (2, Informative)

spideyct (250045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350247)

Search Slashdot for ATLAS (and make sure to copy over all of the negative posts about why people don't want this).

Atlas is the AJAX framework built by Microsoft that allows you to use .NET GUI objects to render browser-compliant javascript and HTML.

It is a much more proper predecessor to Google's release, compared with Yahoo!'s offering (which I believe MS also predated).

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (4, Informative)

Sulka (4250) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349950)

Nope, there's a big difference between these libraries.

The Y! framework still requires you to write HTML and Javascript - they just make implementing DHTML effects + AJAX less painful.

The Google framework removes the base need for HTML and Javascript authoring from the application development process entirely. Obviously you'll want to make the app look nice and need custom styling but in order to actually develop the functionality, zero HTML is needed.

As a consequence you can use the Yahoo stuff with any backend implementation language (PHP, Java, whatever) while the Google framework is limited to strictly Java. I don't mind though. :)

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (1)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350235)

=fun!

think of it like this:

write code in c -> compiler -> excecutable

equivelant to:

build site in google java ajax thingy -> "export" -> web site

making the html/javascript side of the coding analogous to coding an executable in hex

Re:Once again, Yahoo! is overlooked (4, Informative)

Z0mb1eman (629653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349985)

Ohhh? Was it overlooked? [slashdot.org]

To be fair, Yahoo's is just a collection of controls and widgets to be included in a project indvidually - which has been offered by many other sites for quite a while now - while Google's promises to be a framework that takes the headache out of front-end AJAX development. Of course, in my experience "automatically generates code" and "takes the headache out of" are eventually incompatible down the line, but what do I know.

I haven't played with either yet, but they sound like two different beasts to me. The most interesting part of this to me would be to see how Google writes their web code.

Interesting... (0)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349896)

"...developers who don't speak browser quirks as a second language."


There is such a thing?

Re:Interesting... (3, Interesting)

Freexe (717562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349997)

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"><html<head <title>Re:Interesting?</></><body<h1<em>I</> Do believe there </><p<a
href="http://www.example.com"<em>there</></>.
Evil?</><p<a
href="http://www.example.com/">is</></></></>

Yes the above code is valid html. Do you speak it?

Re:Interesting... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350036)

That just proves the w3c validator has bugs in it. There's no way that's valid HTML.

Re:Interesting... (3, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350115)

There's no way that's valid HTML.

Yes, it is. It just uses HTML syntax that virtually no browsers have implemented. This is what the HTML 4.01 specification [w3.org] has to say on the matter:

Some SGML SHORTTAG constructs save typing but add no expressive capability to the SGML application. Although these constructs technically introduce no ambiguity, they reduce the robustness of documents, especially when the language is enhanced to include new elements. Thus, while SHORTTAG constructs of SGML related to attributes are widely used and implemented, those related to elements are not. Documents that use them are conforming SGML documents, but are unlikely to work with many existing HTML tools.

Re:Interesting... (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350129)

No, it includes some relatively unknown bits of the HTML 4.01 spec. You can use </> to close the most recent open element, but I don't know of any browsers that support it nor any web developers who use it. I'm not positive, but that might be something inherited from SGML [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Interesting... (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350044)

No.. but then again I am not a developer... ;)

The sad part is I can read some of it...

Re:Interesting... BrowserQuirks++ (3, Informative)

mnemotronic (586021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350091)

Yes. BrowserQuirks is the vast range of dialects needed, beyond the root languages AychTeeEml, X-Eml, ThisWeeksVersionOfJavascriptAndWereStillNotEcmaCom pliant, and Sea-SS. BrowserQuirks is not so much an independent language, as it is a definition of what the root languges are not. BrowserQuirks (currently in beta rev 72429) is a dynamic, symbiotic, multi-vendor organism, which changes on a regular basis. There is no documentation, unless you're able to "read between the lines" of the various browser release notes - any root language feature not mentioned explicitly is probably not supported, or is supported in a non-standard way. And for that matter, even features that are mentioned are probably done in a non-standard way. A good comparison in the real world is to rapidly mutating virus that alternates between relatively benign and threatens to destroy all carbon-based life.

The browser vendors consider this "a really good thing" because it offers "product differentiation" and "market segment focus". The cost in human lives is not an issue.

Re:Interesting... (-1)

enclaved (570296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350237)

browserquicks, muthafucka! do you speak it?

I knew this would eventually happen. (3, Insightful)

thealsir (927362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349898)

Developers are tired of having to reinvent the wheel every time with dynamic components on web pages, and things like PEAR do not have all their component lib. in one centralized location like this. A developer framework for AJAX is definitely a revolutionary. It marks the move toward using web-based platforms for a greater and greater percentage of common computing functions.

Re:I knew this would eventually happen. (1)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349933)

It's going to be interesting what ideas for new web development will come of this. I'm excited to see the next new thing.

Re:I knew this would eventually happen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350279)

Eventually?! It's already happened. Several times. Microsoft, Yahoo, and several open source projects already provide AJAX toolkit alternatives in other languages than Java.

I, for one... (5, Funny)

ABoerma (941672) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349924)

...welcome our new buzzword-compliant overlords. MFG, all I read these days is Google, Java and/or AJAX.

Re:I, for one... (4, Insightful)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349990)

Yeah, lets bring back the good ole' days when Linx, Internet, world wide web, or microcomputer were the buzzwords of the day.

You people are look old farts complaining about the kids and their music today. Sure there are buzzwords and there is hype, but there always is, so just deal with it.

Re:I, for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350057)

A bit harsh I think, but he has a point.

Java: 2nd best programming langauge ever, a joy to work with

Google: A very good (if over-hyped) search engine

AJAX: yet another sticky plaster to try solve the problem of creating applications on the web. The wrong solution imho. Not to mention the fact that it is several years old (XMLHttpRequest appeared in IE when, IE4?) and has become popular due to a buzzword! Oh and we are all suddenly comfortable running ActiveX controls in our web apps now are we? The group-think would have blasted people for using XMLHttpRequest a few short years ago!

Whatever, it'll soon blow over.

I've used Ajax a few times... (-1)

blcamp (211756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349925)

...but usually it's my wife who does most of the house cleaning.

Re:I've used Ajax a few times... (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349949)

I've seen ajax [english.ajax.nl] a few times....

But I usually don't inflict tired jokes on the slashdot audience (oh, wait, I do all the time, sorry)

More Java Added To The Quagmire (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15349960)

I just wish that Java would dry up and blow away. I don't like it one bit. Not on the server and definitely not on the client! Java makes a 3Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM run slower than a 486 66Mhz with 8MB of RAM.

I sincerely hope that NO ONE defiles their website with this framework!

Re:More Java Added To The Quagmire (0, Offtopic)

gathas (588371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350068)

I Do Not Like Green Eggs and Ham! Did anyone else think this when read this post?

but is it prototype.js based? (1)

acroyear (5882) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349969)

'cause i'm with this [metawrap.com] blog [metawrap.com] and I won't use it. I've already taken it (and ajaxtags) out of my current project and replaced it with js code based on DWR that won't conflict.

Re:but is it prototype.js based? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350055)

Why would Google use prototype?

The license is restrictive.. mods prohibited (5, Informative)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15349979)

Prohibited Actions

Except for distributions for internal business and/or personal use to your employees or contractors in compliance with these Terms and Conditions, you may not distribute Google Web Toolkit Development Tools or any services or software associated with or derived from them, or modify, copy, license, or create derivative works from Google Web Toolkit Development Tools, unless you obtain Google's written permission in advance. If you wish to do any of the above, please contact us by emailing apis@google.com. You may not use the Google Web Toolkit Development Tools to develop or distribute products that violate the law or legal rights of third parties.


No, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth and why does this matter? Because I happen to prefer PHP for web development (just a personal preference). It would be nice to be able to move the JavaScript components off from the Java framework into a PHP based framework. Well, apparantly you can't do that without special permission.

BTW, the Yahoo UI Library [yahoo.com] is BSD licensed.

Re:The license is restrictive.. mods prohibited (1)

shdragon (1797) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350221)

No, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth and why does this matter? Because I happen to prefer PHP for web development (just a personal preference). It would be nice to be able to move the JavaScript components off from the Java framework into a PHP based framework. Well, apparantly you can't do that without special permission.

BTW, the Yahoo UI Library is BSD licensed.


They're only asking for you to request permission. What's the big deal?

Re:The license is restrictive.. mods prohibited (2, Informative)

lilnobody (148653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350227)

Prohibited Actions

Except for distributions for internal business and/or personal use to your employees or contractors in compliance with these Terms and Conditions, you may not distribute Google Web Toolkit Development Tools or any services or software associated with or derived from them, or modify, copy, license, or create derivative works from Google Web Toolkit Development Tools, unless you obtain Google's written permission in advance. If you wish to do any of the above, please contact us by emailing apis@google.com. You may not use the Google Web Toolkit Development Tools to develop or distribute products that violate the law or legal rights of third parties.

No, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth and why does this matter? Because I happen to prefer PHP for web development (just a personal preference). It would be nice to be able to move the JavaScript components off from the Java framework into a PHP based framework. Well, apparantly you can't do that without special permission.

You're misunderstanding, although the legalize associated with the term 'derivative work' when talking about a development environment is aterribly obtuse. This says nothing about the generated code or anything you make with the tools, this is talking about the tools themselves. They are saying you can't redistribute the development environment itself, edit the DE and call it your own, edit the DE and sell it to someone, etc.

Based on this paragraph alone (I haven't read the rest) you can cut and paste into your php just fine.

nobody

Re:The license is restrictive.. mods prohibited (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350302)

No parent was saying that they wanted to modify Googles Tools to work with PHP instead of Java.

Wow (3, Interesting)

astralbat (828541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350001)

I'm not into fanboyism but this is very very impressive. I took a look at the demos. The Desktop App Clone is particularly very impressive and it shows you what can be achieved with this stuff! I've never liked web development for the compatibility nightmare and plus the fact that it's a very messy business. Java with it's object oriented goodness will allow feature full applications to be developed extremely quickly!

Re:Wow (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350177)

I'm not into fanboyism...
This is one of those opening gambits which are so transparently false that they have the opposite effect to the one intended i.e. they make you even more on your guard for whatever they are denying than you would have been.

Cf "Not to start a flamewar, but..." or "I'm not a racist, but..."

Not included and YUI comparisons... (4, Informative)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350011)

The oft-copied 'google suggest' dropdown stuff. It's not something demoed in the 'kitchensink' app they provide at http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/documentation/ex amples/kitchensink/ [google.com] .

I agree with someone else that the Yahoo UI (yui) toolkit seems to get ignored a bit, but I think this plays to a different crowd.

1) This is a java-based thing only it seems. People writing .net can use atlas for most of these features, people using Ruby or other scripting langauges probably have bindings to scriptaculous and other libraries to handle most of this. There were/are probably Java bindings already for scriptaculous, but this makes it easier for java people already used to swing/awt stuff.

2) The YUI stuff was more javascript oriented, and, from my experience, difficult to use in some settings. I had a hard time getting the slider stuff to work as needed based solely on their code and one example page, for example. Perhaps that makes me not as l33t as some others who can debug others' javascript in their sleep - I dunno. I do know that if Google makes this easy for people to adopt, it'll take off. Partially because there's a lot of google love amongst early-adopters in the tech community, and partially because making things easy is just a good way to attract people. :)

3) With the YUI stuff, Yahoo was/is seeming to cater to the scripting crowd more (witness the native serialized PHP responses you can get back). If google is going after the "I write Java apps" crowd, they may be able to bring in a new set of people to web-app development who before now were not in the web space.

I interviewed one of the Yahoo engineers who worked on the YUI widgets release at my podcast - http://webdevradio.com [webdevradio.com] - you can get some more perspective on what Yahoo was/is doing and trying to achieve with that move.

Just some random thoughts...

Take notes all.. (3, Interesting)

boxxa (925862) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350012)

This is great news for all the developers out there. Google by doing this has proved once again that smart business practices and investments make a company, now how much software they patent and lock down. They specfically say that you can create applications like Google Maps and Gmail using their framework. Is someone gonna create a new Gmail or seach engine and take over Google? Prolly not, but Google has shown that not only can it develop high power applications and set the footprints for following developers, but they can also help the community advance just as they have. Just one of the many reasons I love Google.

Re:Take notes all.. (1)

gnum (897315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350233)

Amen :D

Ajax (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350028)

U send me ajax plz. Ur smart guys.

AJAX isn't really ready for .NET (-1)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350032)

Whether its a good thing, or a bad thing isn't my point, but a hell of a lot of development out there is done in .NET. .NET and AJAX really don't play nicely. The fact that AJAX moves much of the processing to the client, and away from the server means you have to do nasty things to keep some semblance of a session state, regarless of whether the server receives a postback or not.

Conceptually, I love the idea of AJAX. In implementation however, I've found it to be a royal PITA.

Re:AJAX isn't really ready for .NET (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350052)

.NET and AJAX really don't play nicely.

Have you seen ICallbackEventHandler [asp.net] in ASP.NET 2 and MS's own ATLAS [asp.net] toolkit?

Re:AJAX isn't really ready for .NET (1)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350125)

I have, but I don't feel comfortable yet, implementing a new MS technology. MS sometimes adopts, and then extinquishes new thing. AJAX, being universal, wouldn't succum to this, imo.

Re:AJAX isn't really ready for .NET (2, Informative)

uradu (10768) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350215)

More like .NET isn't ready for AJAX. AJAX doesn't really use any new web technologies, it just applies existing ones in a somewhat new way. ASP.NET OTOH is a framework that tries to completely shield the developer from the underlying web technologies, and it does so with varying degrees of success, in the process turning out web technology idiots.

Ho Hum.... (-1, Flamebait)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350035)

Not the best implementation of this I've seen - perhaps the WORST.

For one, Java based IDE's always SUCK - their the worst of all worlds. They NEVER have the look-and-feel of your native system, no matter WHAT system your using, and are ALWAYS slow as hell.

Number two - do most of my native work in JavaScript - I could even take doing it in Java - but to have an environment where I work in Java, and it compiles everything over to JavaScript?

Am I missing something???

Re:Ho Hum.... (0)

Spad (470073) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350076)

Yes, that this kit clearly isn't aimed at you.

YUI (2, Interesting)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350053)

This impressive framework promises to make AJAX available to the masses and is one more step towards Google becoming the de facto Internet platform provider."

Erm, actually they're playing catch up. From what I can tell, GWT is rather inferior to YUI [yahoo.net] .

An AJAX Window Manager? (0)

pigreco314 (194375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350054)

Completely new to the technology and thinking on top of my mind whether it would be possible to create a Window Manager running as an AJAX application within a browser...

Re:An AJAX Window Manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350097)

the rest of us calls it a website

...or is it just one more framework? (1)

RISTMO (926726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350124)

Sounds great for really large sites, but for the average developer, is it an improvement? Sure, if you're already coding the site in Java, it's a great tool. Still, I'd just as soon keep my existing AJAX class in an external JavaScript file and include it with 1 line of html. Customizing it for each site is quite fast, and it leaves me with full control. It's the same major complaint I have against ASP.NET: Why learn code to generate your code when you can cut out the middle man and write your own *exactly* how you want it?

Dang... too bad it's java (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350139)

Dang... too bad it's java. Nobody in their right mind would use it now.

Already Been Done (2, Interesting)

TedCHoward (920331) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350148)

This is an impressive toolkit and a nice approach, but Google is not the first to do this. Has anyone heard of ThinWire (http://www.thinwire.com/ [thinwire.com] )? There are already production applications in place built on this framework.

Re:Already Been Done (1)

JChrisP82 (974216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350192)

From what I can tell, the main difference between the two is that GWT is compiled to be all client-side code and Thinwire is a distributed model with most of the hard processing done server-side.

Google a Java shop? (4, Interesting)

lonesometrainer (138112) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350176)

I didn't know Google was a Java shop. Do they mainly code serverside stuff in Java these days? If so, which technology are they using (O/R mapper, servlet container, tricks & quirks). Would be interesting to know.

Any infos?

Big wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350186)

So how exactly is this in any way easier than simply dragging and dropping your AJAX components onto your project using the Java Studio Creator [sun.com] ?

As you can read here [sun.com] they're offering a large set of AJAX components which can be used. IMO its a much saner approach than to rely on some "code creating" toolkit. I'd rather decently write my components once and then start using them many times, knowing that it doesn't contain any backdoors and simply does what it should and nothing else. Also see this [sun.com] site.

Go google (2, Funny)

SoulRider (148285) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350244)

It's really nice to see a company releasing new products to stay competitive instead of using litigation to destroy their competitors. I hope they can keep it up.

What parts are FOSS, what parts are free beer? (1)

Hobart (32767) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350258)

This is a lot of code to pick apart -- can someone post a concise summary of what can be done with the Apache licensed gwt-user.jar part [google.com] , versus the "You may not redistribute" parts?
--
Slashcode bug # 497457 - unfixed since December 2001 - Go look it up [sourceforge.net] !

Impressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350261)

This is actually pretty impressive. It lets you do all the complex things that a real OO language allows, but then makes it just work. It lets you use all the java development tools like debuggers, code generation, documentation, unit testing, etc. If you are using java on the server side, it makes it amazingly simple to integrate client & server side stuff.

The yahoo thing is just an ajax library. This is a new way of developing ajax.

Hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15350290)

This impressive framework promises to make AJAX available to the masses and is one more step towards Google becoming the de facto Internet platform provider.
Yeah, what about javascript.enabled=false

So much potential (1)

Dracolytch (714699) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350309)

I was all excited to start learning to do AJAX the Google way (Because I really don't have time to navigate the browser incompatibility minefield). I pulled up a demo in IE7... Blammo, error on page.

I'm excited for this tool, but I can't use it yet. Bummer.

~D

Genius (1, Insightful)

el_womble (779715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350317)

There is a certain amount of genius in this. For years I've wondered what the best way to combine HTML/Javascript and OO language is, and now it seems obvious: create a tool kit that structures and generates the HTML for you, just as a window toolkit handles it for you. Genius.

I've never been a big fan of % languages. Mixing HTML and anything always looks, bad and fails misrably at seperating code from presentation. Seperating code from presentation on a dynamic page is impossible, but sticking the code in the mark-up language is the wrong compromise, but was the better of two evils (see JSP/Servlets).

Actually having Java classes that represent HTML objects and using them to create dynamic webpages makes so much sense, I'm suprised no one, especially Sun, have tried it earlier.

java based on java? (1, Insightful)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 8 years ago | (#15350326)

I'm not understanding something:
Google released a new AJAX framework based on Java.
Doesn't AJAX mean 'Async. Java And XML'? So can you have AJAX based on something else?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...