Since we are discussing, I really like GXT as well, its quite powerful and
although odd in parts is probably the best going in this particular niche. I
highly recommend buying WindowBuilder Pro for GWT/GXT. It really enables a
fast pace of development.
This GWT/Cayenne integration project would be a huge win for Cayenne if
possible and gain a significant new group of users, this is why its so
exciting to me.
John-
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Andrey Razumovsky <
razumovsky.andre..mail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I used json serialization in the past as well. The goal of new
> project
> is to enable use plain Cayenne API on GWT client too. Direct serialization
> should also be faster than JSON serialization because you don't need extra
> conversion. Also I'm implementing Query API on client, so that you could
> construct and run queries from client.
> As frontend I used GWT-Ext, but I'm already sick of it and I'll never use
> JS
> wrapper again (not to mention it is abandoned). I find GXT much nicer, and
> CDOs are easy to be plugged in it as data models.
>
> Never worked with JavaFX, does it have nice widgets embedded? Why I like
> GWT
> is that I don't need to study yet another script language. Hope that
> appearance of fast, light, powerful and free widget library "for everyone"
> is only a matter of time..
>
> 2010/3/9 Emanuele Maiarelli <emanuel..engozzi.com>
>
> > Nice work, i did something like that in the past, but i used json
> > serialization, and skipped GTW, cause GTW widgets are very poor, unless
> > you
> > plug Ext GW, but Ext libs are performace killers (I tried em on both IE
> and
> > Mozilla but they never run smooth as u expect). I'm hoping in javaFX,
> where
> > porting cayenne clients shouldn't be hard, since javaFX engine is built
> > ontop of a JVM.
> >
> >
> > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > Da: Andrey Razumovsky [mailto:razumovsky.andre..mail.com]
> > Inviato: luned́ 8 marzo 2010 9.37
> > A: use..ayenne.apache.org
> > Oggetto: Re: Cayenne and GWT
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I committed the prototype of the project:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cayenne/sandbox/cayenne-gwt/
> >
> > It is build using Cayenne 3.0RC2 and GWT 2.0.0 (haven't tried, but almost
> > sure previous versions of GWT will work too).
> > You can get some insight of how to use it looking at test project (in
> > src/test/). In fact, only two points are required to enable
> > synchronization:
> > 1. Classes are generared in client folder of your project (e.g.
> > foo.bar.client package)
> > 2. your foo.bar.FooBar.gwt.xml includes this line;
> > <inherits name="org.apache.cayenne.Cayenne"/>
> >
> > Of course this project is startup and never used in production, so
> anything
> > can not work.
> >
> > Note that faults cannot be resolved on GWT client side
> > (FaultFailureException will be thrown), so, to send linked objects to
> > client, you'll need to prefetch them.
> >
> > 2010/3/8 John Armstrong <siberia..mail.com>
> >
> > > Count me in Andrey! This is a topic of interest for us. Current we have
> > > Data
> > > Transfer Objects and a dozer factory that moves data back and forth. It
> > > works well but direct serialization would be absolutely fantastic.
> > >
> > > This is also very interesting for Wicket development since it would let
> > us
> > > serialize some of our smaller items and not be forced to use loadable
> > > detachables.
> > >
> > > I would love to contribute, keep me posted..
> > > John-
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Andrey Razumovsky <
> > > razumovsky.andre..mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John (and others working with Cayenne and GWT)!
> > > >
> > > > Are you still interested in the subject?
> > > > I've been doing some research and on the surface the first results
> look
> > > > very
> > > > promising.
> > > > In a couple of words, I bet you can use your CDOs on client without
> any
> > > > other branch of generated classes and without any custom templates!
> > > > All you'll need is to add a line in your gwt.xml - and the objects
> will
> > > > become Serializable! Thus, you can make CDOs as result of RPC call,
> and
> > > > vice
> > > > versa, send them to server. This is faster because no Dozer copying
> or
> > > > something is needed.
> > > > The next steps will be to make Query API avaliable to client, so that
> > you
> > > > can perform asynchronous queries from client side, and think of
> > mechanizm
> > > > of
> > > > merging client changes back to server (or even make some mock
> > > ObjectContext
> > > > for client side).
> > > > I'm seriosly thinking of starting Cayenne subroject with that (or
> > > separate
> > > > open-source project). Does anyone find this interesting??
> > > >
> > > > 2010/1/28 John Armstrong <siberia..mail.com>
> > > >
> > > > > The way I am handling 'what gets mapped' is with a BeanFactory
> class
> > > > > that uses Dozer to do basic mapping on a per CDO/Bean basis.
> > BeanUtils
> > > > > could do this but BeanUtils blows up a lot more easily. Dozer
> handles
> > > > > serializable attributes automatically for us. Case by case I add
> > logic
> > > > > to my BeanFactory for a specific class or use a Dozer xml mapping
> > file
> > > > > as appropriate (same as you are doing in xml probably, just with
> > > > > Dozer). I get to pick which method to use though so the tool scales
> > > > > well from a developer point of view.
> > > > >
> > > > > This gets me my basic POJO/CDO back and forth. The bean itself
> (pure
> > > > > client side object) is not a one to one map with the CDO, its just
> a
> > > > > client side representation of what data we want out of the CDO that
> > is
> > > > > required for the app display/logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words: The bean has fields that the CDO doesn't. We treat
> > the
> > > > > CDO as 'data tier' and the mapped Bean as 'display tier'. What is
> in
> > > > > the bean is very much driven by our UI requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the CDO may have a many mapping that represents a list of
> 'client'
> > > > > objects, the POJO has an integer that is 'clientCount' instead and
> > > > > used for display purposes. To get an actual list of 'clients' is a
> > > > > round-trip to the server to get a list of ClientBean based on some
> > > > > attribute in the application. This seems to work nicely in the GWT
> > > > > async construct. We keep this in mind as we design the interface so
> > as
> > > > > to minimize user wait states and we add Bean attributes as required
> > to
> > > > > support new UI requirements (CDO is not changed without a lot of
> > > > > discussion however, it impacts a lot of other non-GWT interfaces).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is where I want to use Velocity templates. Just as cayenne
> > > > > generates the _CLASS and CLASS versions of the file I want a third
> > > > > which is CLASSBEAN that is very boiler plate. Just a bunch of :
> > > > >
> > > > > public ClientsettingsBean getClientsettingsBean(Clientsettings
> > > settings){
> > > > > return
> mapper.map(settings,ClientsettingsBean.class);
> > > > > }
> > > > > public void setClientsettings(ClientsettingsBean bean,
> > > > > Clientsettings
> > > > > settings){
> > > > > mapper.map(bean,settings);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > which can then be added to by the developer as required to achieve
> UI
> > > > > goals that the Bean must support:
> > > > >
> > > > > public ClientsettingsBean getClientsettingsBean(Clientsettings
> > > settings){
> > > > > ClientsettingsBean theBean =
> > > > > mapper.map(settings,ClientsettingsBean.class);
> > > > > // these could be dozer xml maps as well, developer
> > > choice
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > theBean.setCountOfSomeAspectOfMyGraph(settings.getCountofSomeObject());
> > > > >
> > > > >
> theBean.setSomeOtherHugeAndExpensiveThingIfWeSentItAsARealObject(12);
> > > > > return theBean;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > On the UI framework front. This is somewhat of a big debate,
> > > > > particularly on the GWT lists. We really find the widget support in
> > > > > GXT invaluable. Our GWT apps are very 'dashboard' like in nature
> and
> > > > > almost entirely Grid driven. Our opinion is that the GXT grids are
> > the
> > > > > best going right now so thats where we ended up.
> > > > >
> > > > > John-
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Andrey Razumovsky
> > > > > <razumovsky.andre..mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Cool, didn't know about BeanModel.. I'm never used GXT. We've
> wrote
> > > > quite
> > > > > a
> > > > > > lot of code in GWT-Ext (and it supports JSON).. This is raw and
> > > > abandoned
> > > > > > project, and I hate it more and more each day (and also I will
> > never
> > > > > anymore
> > > > > > use wrapper library, like SmartGWT). Still I've been unable to
> > > persuade
> > > > > my
> > > > > > manager to spend several dollars for a licence :( Looks like now
> I
> > > have
> > > > > one
> > > > > > more reason to do it.
> > > > > > As about beans on client, I've been dreaming about something like
> > ROP
> > > > for
> > > > > > GWT. For now we can do the task of converting the objects to
> POJOs,
> > > > this
> > > > > > must be quite easy. Still I'm not sure, how you're going to
> decide
> > > what
> > > > > part
> > > > > > of Cayenne object graph is to be sent on client (this is what I
> use
> > > XML
> > > > > > descriptions BTW)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2010/1/28 John Armstrong <siberia..mail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I'm using GXT which has a pretty strong preference for its own
> > > > > >> 'BeanModel' (thin wrapper around a javabean that understands
> GXT)
> > > for
> > > > > >> grid population etc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> That (in my mind) means I am either serializing Cayenne Models
> ->
> > > JSON
> > > > > >> -> BeanModels or just going from Cayenne Model -> BeanModel so I
> > > > > >> decided to skip the JSON step.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Outside of easy GXT integration the only other thing I get are
> > > > > >> enumerations (supposedly) which I use in a few important places
> in
> > > my
> > > > > >> models.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Does that make sense? I haven't done much straight GWT which is
> > much
> > > > > >> different then GXT so the interactions may be different.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I am very interested in what you are doing, finding someone
> using
> > > GWT
> > > > > >> and Cayenne is not so common!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> John-
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Andrey Razumovsky
> > > > > >> <razumovsky.andre..mail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > I'm currently using Cayenne and GWT. I think the question
> should
> > > be
> > > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > worth it to convert server beans to client beans. Do you
> really
> > > need
> > > > > data
> > > > > >> > objects on client side? With a lack of reflection they cannot
> be
> > > > > easily
> > > > > >> used
> > > > > >> > in UI. I think this only produces unneeded convertion.
> > > > > >> > What I do is convert CDOs to JSON on server side, this is done
> > > with
> > > > > >> > XML-based descriptions (which look much like json-taglib, but
> > are
> > > > > >> > standalone) and use only JSON-based data on client side.
> > > > > >> > What do you think?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 2010/1/28 John Armstrong <siberia..iberian.org>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> I'm finding myself generating a lot of Beans that mirror my
> > > cayenne
> > > > > >> >> entities (plus Dozer mappings) as I delve into GWT.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> This is crying out for automation and I'm sure a few others
> > would
> > > > > >> >> enjoy it. It may even make Cayenne very GWT Friendly.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> To move this ball forward (for me minimally) can anyone point
> > me
> > > to
> > > > > >> >> either some sort of sample implementation of Cayenne velocity
> > > > > template
> > > > > >> >> based code generation (or whatever is being used in 3.0) or a
> > > > pointer
> > > > > >> >> to where in the source code a sample template/generator lives
> > > that
> > > > I
> > > > > >> >> can explore?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Tx. My fingers are getting sore-
> > > > > >> >> John-
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Andrey
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Andrey
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrey
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrey
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Mar 09 2010 - 16:56:22 EST