BrightPages.com switched to GWT
Samyem Tuladhar
We recently ported the site http://brightpages.com from Struts to GWT.
As others have experienced, we had quite a ride porting to GWT
framework. Being a public website, we have had to deal with issues
like making the site accessible to crawlers and minimize the network
traffic. We still have some UI bits rendered from server as GWT's
dynamic UI is not crawlable. But most of the interactive bits turned
out good with GWT.
The other issue we dealt with is the size of the javascript output by
GWT. The way we got around it using deferred binding to output
different JS per page and in some cases, per use case, while using the
same GWT module. This bought the size of the uncompressed JS from over
400kb to less than 27kb. I know that the JS is cached by the browser,
but the delay in first-time hit was not acceptable.
We tried to switch to GWT 1.5 but the compile time was making the
process prohibitive. Looking forward to the final release of 1.5 and
the community feedback.
Thanks,
Brightpages.com Team
Joe Cole
How did you do the custom suggestboxes on the front page, is it
completely custom or based on gwt's?
Joe
> We recently ported the sitehttp://brightpages.comfrom Struts to GWT.
Samyem Tuladhar
of the site coming live next week with flash-gwt for audio/video stuff
and with drag and drop. Tune in.
On Aug 6, 7:30 pm, Joe Cole <profilercorporat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Slick!
>
> How did you do the custom suggestboxes on the front page, is it
> completely custom or based on gwt's?
>
> Joe
>
> On Aug 7, 8:49 am, Samyem Tuladhar <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone!
>
Jim Freeze
But, I found the site slow to respond on the autocomplete,
it didn't support the return key for the find, and within about
10seconds I succeeded in getting a 500 Internal Server Error
and a page of exceptions (not that I was trying to do this.)
Jim
>>
>> On Aug 7, 8:49 am, Samyem Tuladhar <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Everyone!
>>
>> > We recently ported the sitehttp://brightpages.comfromStruts to GWT.
>> > As others have experienced, we had quite a ride porting to GWT
>> > framework. Being a public website, we have had to deal with issues
>> > like making the site accessible to crawlers and minimize the network
>> > traffic. We still have some UI bits rendered from server as GWT's
>> > dynamic UI is not crawlable. But most of the interactive bits turned
>> > out good with GWT.
>>
>> > The other issue we dealt with is the size of the javascript output by
>> > GWT. The way we got around it using deferred binding to output
>> > different JS per page and in some cases, per use case, while using the
>> > same GWT module. This bought the size of the uncompressed JS from over
>> > 400kb to less than 27kb. I know that the JS is cached by the browser,
>> > but the delay in first-time hit was not acceptable.
>>
>> > We tried to switch to GWT 1.5 but the compile time was making the
>> > process prohibitive. Looking forward to the final release of 1.5 and
>> > the community feedback.
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > Brightpages.com Team
> >
>
--
Jim Freeze
Samyem Tuladhar
Thanks for your feedback. I was wondering if you can let me know how
you got the exception.
Thanks,
On Aug 6, 11:51 pm, "Jim Freeze" <jimfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the look. You can't tell it is a GWT app, which is good.
> But, I found the site slow to respond on the autocomplete,
> it didn't support the return key for the find, and within about
> 10seconds I succeeded in getting a 500 Internal Server Error
> and a page of exceptions (not that I was trying to do this.)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Aug 7, 8:49 am, Samyem Tuladhar <sam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Hello Everyone!
>
Jim Freeze
When I got the exception, I think I was just doing a search.
I tried the site soon after you posted it here earlier today.
You may want to check the log files. I couldn't reproduce
the problem tonight.
Some observations:
1) Safari seems more responsive than FF. I tried FF only earlier today.
2) I see that the site does respond 'return' key, but it is difficult
to tell that it worked because
there is not a visual cue that the site is searching.
3) If it was my site, I would probably set the focus to the first
search box after page
load. But I realize that may not be something you want to do.
4) the autocomplete box seems more responsive tonight - maybe it is that my
home network is faster than works. What I don't like about the
autocomplete is that
I can't select the option with the keyboard, but have to click the
selection with the mouse.
5) Clicking on links that take a while to load make me think the link
is broken because
there is no busy indicator.
6) The drop down autocomplete is huge and only half filled - both
vertically and horizontally.
And, on top of that, the text in the dialog is truncated with elipsis
(...). See the attachment.
Overall, the site has some nice styling. I think once some of these
subtle usage cues are
addressed, that it will look and feel like a polished app.
Jim
--
Jim Freeze
Samyem Tuladhar
for your feedback. We are still monitoring the usage and fixing
things. Over the next few days, we are getting the more complex parts
of the site up as well.
Thanks,
> 51KViewDownload
Joe Cole
I am not sure if it was something I did, but I had javascript turned
off testing our site and tried your site, and it wouldn't let me
search. I searched for "try", "helo" and all it gave me was pizza, and
the what parameter in the browser location bar was missing.
Joe
Samyem Tuladhar
Thanks for the feedback. Not sure about how you did it but I coult not
easily replicate your issue. Anyway, with javascript turned off, the
site switches to a minimal functionality mode and many of the features
won't work. We'll keep testing nevertheless.
Thanks,
On Aug 7, 1:41 am, Joe Cole <profilercorporat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Samyem,
>
> I am not sure if it was something I did, but I had javascript turned
> off testing our site and tried your site, and it wouldn't let me
> search. I searched for "try", "helo" and all it gave me was pizza, and
> the what parameter in the browser location bar was missing.
>
> Joe
>
> Samyem Tuladhar wrote:
> > Hello Everyone!
>