Portlet Support?

[robhedin]

I've been looking over the GWT and have been quite impressed, but it
looks as if this is not a very good fit for use in Portlets. Is that a
correct read of the situation?

rob.

[horace.f...@gmail.com]

I don't see why necessarily. Looks like you could get a good deal of
milage out of the toolkit even if it's not an intrinsic part of the
design. For example, it looks like an easy, robust way to add rich
controls or eye candy to pages on a one-by-one basis, since at heart
all you're doing is turning a subset of Java into standalone js. Even
in that limited scenario, it will make generating the js easier and
less error-prone.

[Robert Hedin]

But from what I can see, the generated html is controlled via meta-tags and the gwt.js; so to use from a portlet, you'd need to be able to (somehow) add meta-tags to the HEAD; also the actual generated code is a full HTML page being rendered in an IFRAME; also how would the positioning of components hold up given that the Portal can re-arrange the location of the portlets on the page?

I suppose you could just treat the GWT application as an IFRAME portlet, but that basically means you're not writing portlets anymore.

rob.

[John]

I want to do exactly this too. I'm using liferay as the portal engine,
so I can probably alter it to put the meta-tags in the head, but I
don't really want to be putting IFrames in the portlets.

I don't see a way of getting a GWT application generates in a div, or
some other portlet friendly style.

Are GWT applications intended to only ever be whole page apps?

John.

[amarish]

John,

Did you happen to figure out how to get this to work in Liferay? I'm
also trying to do the exact same thing. I think that in the worst case
scenario, we can use Liferay's IFrame Portlet which I would rather not
do.

Amarish

[john]

Did anyone figure out how to create a JSR-168 portlet (We will be
deploying to liferay), without the use of the IFRAME portlet?