What is happening to GWT???

[H Maner]

Hello all,

I am sure I am not the only one who noticed that new GWT releases have slowed down to a crawl, significantly missed the announced anticipated dates in the GWT.create project.  We were long supposed be happily using version 3 by now and, after only *one* beta release in all of 2015, there has been no new release so far in 2016, version 2.8.0 is still "beta", no sign of 3...

We have mission critical systems written in GWT and we are wondering if GWT is almost dead. 

Can someone involved in the GWT's development/support please answer this question?

Thank you,

Hal Maner

M Systems International, Inc.

[Michael Zhou]

GWT 2.8 will hopefully be released soon-ish: https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-site/pull/181

Google is developing a new Java-to-JavaScript transpiler called J2CL (Jackal) that might serve as the core of GWT 3.

[Gilberto]

... and that's a problem, at least the way it is developed now.

GWT is a more-or-less open-source project. While it is indeed open-source (you can look at the code), the process of developing it depends heavily on closed-source, blackbox projects made by Google, that nobody really knows about or aren't allowed to say about.

For example: it was said that "Google uses GWT 2.8 beta internally, so it is pretty stable". Which projects? Who are the folks involved in those projects? How deep in the usage of GWT on those projects? Nobody knows, and yet the development cycle of GWT is tied to it.

So GWT is not only internal to Google since the creation of the steering group, but still it depends heavily on Google - and it is not advertised as it used to be (like on Google I/O and other presentations).

And by being tied to blackbox projects from Google, and since the policy of Google for release dates is "release when it's done", we, members of the GWT community outside Google, stay with little-to-no information about how and when the things will be done.

It's nice to have a company like Google using GWT (is it still using?), but the development process and communication with the community have a long way to go.

[Thomas Broyer]

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 12:29:32 PM UTC+2, Gilberto wrote:

... and that's a problem, at least the way it is developed now.

GWT is a more-or-less open-source project. While it is indeed open-source (you can look at the code), the process of developing it depends heavily on closed-source, blackbox projects made by Google, that nobody really knows about or aren't allowed to say about.

For example: it was said that "Google uses GWT 2.8 beta internally, so it is pretty stable". Which projects? Who are the folks involved in those projects? How deep in the usage of GWT on those projects? Nobody knows, and yet the development cycle of GWT is tied to it.

That's not true.

Google mirrors GWT code internally so "their GWT" is pretty close to "our GWT" (AFAIK there's one single commit that differs, the one that upgrades Jetty and HTMLUnit)

Google uses a "monorepo", where everything is in a single source repository, including GWT. This means there's no "release", every dependency is a "snapshot"; so Google does not use "2.8 beta", it uses "master" (at the point they synchronized with the open-source repo, modulo internal changes, like the commit I mentioned above that they didn't sync internally –if you want the details, that's because they can't depend on Servlet API 3.1, so they have to keep the older Jetty–, and they also already deleted legacy devmode).

What we do not know for sure is what parts of GWT they're using and which ones they're not. We know they're using widgets and GWT-RPC, because Google Groups, the very webapp I'm typing this message in, is built with GWT and uses widgets and GWT-RPC (other GWT-based webapps, such as Google Flights, also use widgets BTW). And we know they don't use Request Factory, the Editor Framework, or JSR 303 Bean Validation. We also know they don't use com.google.gwt.dev.DevMode to run their apps, their only dependency on Jetty (for example) is the "internal" use in JUnitShell and CodeServer, but they're not using it to run webapps: they don't rely on web.xml, webapp classloader specific behavior, JSPs, etc. Rather, they (apparently) use CodeServer and run their webapps separately.

 

So GWT is not only internal to Google since the creation of the steering group, but still it depends heavily on Google - and it is not advertised as it used to be (like on Google I/O and other presentations).

And by being tied to blackbox projects from Google, and since the policy of Google for release dates is "release when it's done", we, members of the GWT community outside Google, stay with little-to-no information about how and when the things will be done.

As said above, Google doesn't really care about "releases", except for that they care enough about the community "outside" who, they know, do care about releases.

It's not much "the policy of Google" than "the policy of the GWT Steering Committee", and because Google are the ones doing the heavy development work (though non-Googlers deserve recognition for their hard work, mostly recently for emulating new Java 8 APIs), it happens that we're all waiting for them; but anyone can step in and get involved to help speed the process (if only by testing snapshots, and not only new features but also ensuring there's no regression).

I've said it many times, but apparently it bears repeating: complaining doesn't help, it only spreads FUD. Development is made publicly, so if you want to know what's happening, start by having a look at the issue tracker and commit history, then possibly code reviews to see what's coming, and test snapshots (if only for non-regression). And anyone is free to transform this form of communication into another one (posts to the forums, blog articles, etc.) But it takes time, and most of the contributors prefer spending their time differently (contributing code, triaging issues, answering on the forums and stack overflow, trying the new features and give feedback, working on build-tools integrations/plugins, etc.)

[Jens]

As said above, Google doesn't really care about "releases", except for that they care enough about the community "outside" who, they know, do care about releases.

@Thomas: And thats exactly why I think GWT will have a better life if we would do fixed, automated monthly / quarterly releases directly from master after they have run through Google testing to ensure a high degree of stableness. People don't like using SNAPSHOTs so just lets just "rename" some SNAPSHOTs as releases on a regular basis.

@Others: I am not on the steering group and I am not an official maintainer for any of GWT's features. But still I think I am pretty good informed about whats going on with GWT. How, do you ask? Exactly as Thomas said. 

I am reading posts in

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/google-web-toolkit-contributors

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/gwt-steering

I regularly look at upcoming commits to see whats in the pipeline

https://gwt-review.googlesource.com/#/dashboard/self

You can even get notified via email of changes to upcoming commits by either registering on https://gwt-review.googlesource.com and configure email notification or by joining https://groups.google.com/a/gwtproject.org/forum/#!forum/gwt-reviews

GWT does not do public relations work, if you want to stay informed you need to gather information using the above sources.

-- J.

[Gilberto]

Guys, threads asking if GWT is dead/dying shouldn't appear as often as it does. Actually they shouldn't appear at all. But they do. Something is definitely wrong. As community we should do something. In my opinion the communication is pretty poor and should be improved. GWT is "too blackbox" in my opinion, because of the reasons I stated before.

But if the communication is fine, it's just a matter of the interest of the developer in viewing commit logs, so what's the problem then? Don't tell me everything is fine - a forum with threads asking if the framework is dead isn't a sign that everything is fine.

It hurts to ask other developers about GWT and hear "GWT? Never heard of it". Is it just their fault? What makes a framework live, the commits on a repository or the community behind it?

[Jens]

 

As community we should do something. In my opinion the communication is pretty poor and should be improved. GWT is "too blackbox" in my opinion, because of the reasons I stated before.

Its as open as any other open source project.

 

But if the communication is fine, it's just a matter of the interest of the developer in viewing commit logs, so what's the problem then? Don't tell me everything is fine - a forum with threads asking if the framework is dead isn't a sign that everything is fine.

These threads appear because GWT has communicated release dates in the past and did not meet them for a long time. So these people then think nobody is working on GWT anymore and they don't take a look at the sources I have linked above to rethink their statement. Personally I believe these threads will instantly disappear if GWT would do automated, regular releases from master branch for the people relying on releases. The rest probably uses master branch of GWT anyway because its very stable (as Thomas said, Google continuously builds software from master branches).

 

What makes a framework live, the commits on a repository or the community behind it?

Actually the commits, because I would never use a framework nobody is working on to improve it.

-- J.

[Vassilis Virvilis]

Hi,

+1 on the regular releases. I am perfectly aware that this is an open source project so nobody is entitled in asking anything. However with long standing releases it is getting difficult to justify use of GWT in my organization. It is much easier to carry custom patches or skip a buggy release in a fast pacing schedule.

@Jens thanks for the links. I always assumed you were an insider in GWT development.

I am sure there must be a better way of documenting the GWT development than Jen's mail though... :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-we...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Vassilis Virvilis

[Thomas Broyer]

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 5:36:58 PM UTC+2, Gilberto wrote:

Guys, threads asking if GWT is dead/dying shouldn't appear as often as it does. Actually they shouldn't appear at all. But they do. Something is definitely wrong. As community we should do something.

Glad you're using "we" here! ;-)

 

In my opinion the communication is pretty poor and should be improved. GWT is "too blackbox" in my opinion, because of the reasons I stated before.

But if the communication is fine, it's just a matter of the interest of the developer in viewing commit logs, so what's the problem then? Don't tell me everything is fine - a forum with threads asking if the framework is dead isn't a sign that everything is fine.

I'm not saying everything's fine; I'm asking for the community to:

 * have "responsible behavior" when those threads happen, and rather answer with "yeah, we know communication is rather bad, but GWT is not dead" than with "GWT is not really open source, Google is leading and doing what they want to do without care for the community" etc. many more "arguments" implying you'd rather think about switching to something else. If you don't have information, ask, reply with "I too wonder, anyone knows better?", don't spread FUD.

 * help fixing those communication issues by investing the time it takes to be the "link" between the developers who don't have enough time to communicate broadly and the rest of the community who ask for more information/communication.

I've just spent a day working on finally unbundling third-party dependencies from gwt-dev and gwt-user (testing this is such a time sink) and a few hours reading and answering here, on stack overflow and on the issue tracker. And I do that primarily on my free time; I'm not paid for working on GWT (though my employer is OK with me spending a little work time on it, which I just did yesterday).

[Thomas Broyer]

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 4:22:28 PM UTC+2, Jens wrote:

As said above, Google doesn't really care about "releases", except for that they care enough about the community "outside" who, they know, do care about releases.

@Thomas: And thats exactly why I think GWT will have a better life if we would do fixed, automated monthly / quarterly releases directly from master after they have run through Google testing to ensure a high degree of stableness. People don't like using SNAPSHOTs so just lets just "rename" some SNAPSHOTs as releases on a regular basis.

+1, though it needs more testing than "Google testing", because Google doesn't use 100% of GWT, and don't use it the way we use it externally (whether the "SDK" or Maven artifacts).

Because it takes some time to test, it cannot be too frequent; unless maybe we only "stage" artifacts and ask the community to test them and vote for whether to release them (like Apache does)

But it also takes some time to write release notes for every release.

So again, mostly a problem of time to spend.

[Jens]

But it also takes some time to write release notes for every release.

So again, mostly a problem of time to spend.

I think if we take care on good commit messages and bug tracking we could automate releases including good enough release notes on Github using their API.

-- J.

[Cristiano Costantini]

+1 

as "Google uses a monorepo [...] This means there's no "release", every dependency is a "snapshot", this is a sign of stability, I think it is really worth to start releasing more frequently the Open Source community edition.

--

[Michael Joyner]

We vote for quarterly or twice year releases. It doesn't matter if they
are feature complete, only that progress is being made and all these
other projects like GwtMaterial use them. Nothing like being told when
asking about an issue that (to paraphrase) "You are using gwt 2.8, only
gwt 2.7 is officially supported, it's the last official release" without
any comment made about the issue or suggestions or questions or anything
else.