tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3933266989882835478.post3397977736589996955..comments2009-05-18T22:11:29.031+01:00David Petersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03475136061061572446noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3933266989882835478.post-9947759184850017552009-05-18T22:07:00.000+01:002009-05-18T22:07:00.000+01:00GWT is really good - it lacks a set of nice GUI components like SmartGWT though.Georgeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04193718081164776201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3933266989882835478.post-16692346756803079062009-02-19T11:58:00.000Z2009-02-19T11:58:00.000ZYeah, I kinda agree but Google search engine can't spider GWT applications yet, and not all browser platforms support Javascript.David Petersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03475136061061572446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3933266989882835478.post-64827361132518270262009-02-19T11:54:00.000Z2009-02-19T11:54:00.000ZTapestry 5 is miles away from Tapestry 4, even so, Tapestry 4 was miles ahead of the competitions at the time (did you rather use JSP or struts??)<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I don't understand why you bother to combine GWT with Tapestry, I think GWT does everything better.Jimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00984182490670579601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3933266989882835478.post-5469466578656067142009-02-13T15:01:00.000Z2009-02-13T15:01:00.000ZCan't wait for GWT 1.6 - really looking forward to the improved compilation times... as for Tapestry... errr I'd rather not. :)StuartEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06551238792147984349noreply@blogger.com