We Keep Coding

What is the difference between Cappuccino and Node.js?

I have been working with node JS for about two weeks and I am liking it a lot. I came cross something called Cappuccino; it sounds like what I want to use to develop a web application. As a beginner, can someone assist with explaining what exactly Cappuccino is and how it fits into node?
Really my hold up with developing an application is that I come from a VB background and I am use to forms to design my desktop apps. I do not want to be limited with a WYSIWYG type of IDE, that is why I started with node.

What sort of web application? There are... many JS libraries/frameworks. It's a jungle.
My strong advice is to build several things, from very small to less small, using pure Javascript. Otherwise you will, I promise, remain forever cloudy on what the language is vs. the frameworks layered on top. JS is very mutable and frameworks have a tendency to create new semantics on top of the core language. The downside of learning by using these is you ever fully understand the complexities and subtleties of the language itself, nor do you ever really understand what those frameworks are giving you (in many cases, things you don't need or that artificially constrain you). Be wary of framework entanglement.
As you get used to writing simple scripts in a text editor (try Sublime Text if you want something much better than that), you'll begin to appreciate when and why you might want help from a framework. Move on to jQuery, as it's the most widely used library and is either a dependency or heavily informs the style of many other libraries out there.
I'm working on a blog post about the topic of frameworks, by no means comprehensive as there are hundreds of them it seems. Specifically, breaking down about 20-30 major players by their intended domain (e.g. DOM manipulation, Single Page Applications, data-binding, MVC, etc.) and strengths and weaknesses.
There are some great books and YouTube videos going into many aspects of modern JS. Anything by Douglas Crockford I recommend (especially book or video "Javascript: The Good Parts". He's pedantic but wise and generally on the money. Then for more inspirational stuff about recent/upcoming changes to the language, watch some stuff from the Google I/O events. Check out HTML5rocks.com for articles on some cutting edge features available in the browser. There are many many more resources, but these are some good ones.
Oh and be sure you are familiar with the dev tools in the browser. I personally recommend Chrome as best of breed. Learn the keyboard shortcut to open it on any page, inspect, and noodle. There are some fancy things such tools support like live editing/saving of source, profiling and debugging, DOM/CSS inspection, and on and on. There are other free and non-free IDEs but IMHO they are too much overhead for someone just learning (and many advanced JS developers use Sublime Text).
P.S.: jQuery, per its design goals, is still going strong but is aimed for obsolescence as browsers increasingly are converging on true standards (ES5, HTML5, CSS3). Even so, for many apps, its shorthand semantics are much better than even the newly supported standards for many things. And it's not going away any time soon, just becoming less important. Like IE. Ignore IE unless you need to build things for work.

As far as I can see, Cappuccino is a client-side framework of some kind, in the same kind of vein as Backbone.js or Angular.js, and is in no way comparable with Node.js. They run in completely different environments (Node on the server, Cappuccino in the browser).
A client-side framework like Cappuccino would be used to implement web apps that needed to do a lot of work on the client side. For instance, if you implemented a real-time web app with Node, you might use it to simplify inserting new content into the DOM.
I haven't used Cappuccino, and it doesn't seem to be all that popular. It seems to be squarely aimed at people with a background in Cocoa development on Mac OS X, so if that's not what you're after I would recommend you look elsewhere. Client-side MVC frameworks are very useful for some use cases, and the big four seem to be Angular.js, Ember.js, Backbone.js and Knockout.js, so I would check out one of them before considering Cappuccino. Knockout is very easy to learn, but lacks routing, which was a deal-breaker for me, so I switched to Backbone. Considering how much mindshare it seems to have, I would probably now go for AngularJS.

Cappuccino is a client side framework built on top of Objective-J which in turn is a complete language built on javascript. It's intended solely for building desktop class applications that happen to run in a browser.
Objective-J adds features to javascript (like classical inheritance) in the same way Objective-C adds them to C. You can use Objective-J with node but probably not most of Cappuccino. Cappuccino is the framework that lets you build rich user interfaces in a way that allows you to completely ignore that you're working with html.
I would not recommend Cappuccino as a first foray into web development unless you really only want to build a business application and you are already a proficient Mac OS X or iPhone developer. It will not help at all to teach you about the web.
Cappuccino is (imho) head and shoulders above everything else in its league, but it is intended (or most useful) for a very tiny niche.
If you're still interested in Cappuccino (or Objective-J) you should really check out the learn section of the Cappuccino project website

Why SPA (Single Page App)?

Inspired by John Papa's video at Pluralsight, I started learning SPA. It appears pretty interesting. However, before I fully jump in, I'd like to clarify some of my questions.
From what I learnt, SPA is a lean server, fat client app. I think this should work well for small apps like what John Para demonstrated. Does it scale? How big it can be? Anybody has experience with this?
In SPA, you seem to code all the business logic in JavaScript. Is this a good idea at all? How do you hide the business "secret"?
With my background primarily in C#/WPF/.NET, moving to JavaScript seems to be very difficult (well, I learnt a little JavaScript more than 10 years ago - I hated it and never touched it again). With my limited knowledge, I ran into several problems. Debugging JavaScript seems to be a nightmare to me. The highly praised component Breezejs seems to be still in its early stage (e.g. it doesn't support UOW, doesn't support CascadeDelete, doesn't support enums). So, I'm wondering this is good time to jump in?

Directly to your questions:
Since the server logic is thin you can use some kind of cloud services and they scale pretty good. The most of the logic will be handled by the browsers of your users.
You should be careful if you depend on client. HTTP protocol can be easily manipulated. Don't forget that you should always do the validation logic both on client and server side! Also the "hidden" validation and other "secret" logic should be located only on the server.
Debugging JavaScript isn't so bad at all. You can use the built-in tools (Inspect element in Chrome and FireBug in Firefox, etc.) Also there are a lot of useful third party tools that will help you with the debugging.
If you start a new project just for your own use then I advice you to try the SPA approach. If you are writing production code you should become an expert in this area and then try to use these technologies.

Regarding UoW, take a look at the TempHire sample. It demonstrates using the UoW pattern on the client as well as the server.
https://github.com/IdeaBlade/Breeze/tree/master/Samples/TempHire

I believe SPA's provide a better framework for Business Intensive Applications as well as simpler application workflows such as that of Facebook. I have worked with Multi Page Applications for banking application with complex workflows and it get daunting to handle every thing and still keep up the application performance.
But I do think Knockout Alone wont be able to handle large applications as it is to connected in nature. I would recommend something like Backbone Marionete or Angular for that venture.
I am building a framework for large scale SPA development for the opensource community so I do believe it is the right direction.
Interested parties can go to my demo page at http:\saqibshakil.github.io I have demonstrated some of my work there.

i have been looking into it for months. My conclusion is to use Knockout with a light path.js or sammy.js for your url. I use json with a standard Visual Studio MVC ( which can return Json) as the backend.
I am still not done with the project but so far so good. It's lightning fast, elequent and lightweight.
Stay away from the frameworks. Get a look at the standard libraries: how they are written; You can learn a lot of JavaScript that way. Finally debug with chrome or explorer developer tools.
Good luck

Pure JavaScript-based clients

I would like to know, how powerful/viable are JavaScript only clients based on say, GWT/gxt/vaadin, when compared to DHTML clients such as those made with wicket, tapestry, click etc?
My boss has insisted on using GXT (due to its nice colors and theme) on a project that will most likely become very big with lots of screens. I am against the idea of a javascript only client, especially when the javascript is generated from Java code. I have tried to advice him that we use something like wicket whereby we construct the screens with html but put in ajax where and when neccessary.
How viable is such a JavaScript client? I understand that JavaScript was intended for minor web page enhancements, and not all browsers, especially mobile devices have complete support for JavaScript.

Yes, it is viable for certain applications. Consider Gmail, Google Docs and Google Maps as typical applications where this works, and is probably the most feasible approach.
Some rich UI JavaScript frameworks, such as Ext JS also rely on this technique.

I've built javascript only web apps for ages.
First in SAP projects for big multinationals. And now on a new project:https://beebole-apps.com?demo
So yes it is powerful and viable.

Javascript-only webapp can be extremely powerful, and it's viable for certain applications, say, an Instant-Messenger webapp?
You mentioned that there are lots of screens in your web-app. One of the advantages from GWT/GXT is the fact that you can unit test your UI-layer with JUnit. This is an extra testing you can do on top of, say, Selenium. This is essential if you'd like to make UI testing a part of the continuous integration process, and, as the team grows, you'll definitely want to have tests around to make sure everything works (At least in theory.)
However, if what your boss meant to do is to build an in-house, custom Javascript engine using GWT's JavaScript Native Interface (Link), then I'm not sure...
Another advantage with GWT-like-engine over Wicket is that you can rely on HTML-code-gen to generate standard-compliant (In theory) HTML code. With framework like Wicket, it is hard to ensure every single developer on the team to author good HTML code - Especially when the team gets bigger.

Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Vaadin team.
Our Timeline demo is a good example of what can be achieved with Vaadin and GWT in client side, but I think all of the options presented in this discussions are viable given enough time.
Since you are going to start a big project you should build a simple proof-of-concept app with each of the relevant frameworks. If your PoC includes at least some of the more complex use cases you'll probably can make a pretty informed choice based on the experiences you get while building them.
I urge you to at least evaluate Vaadin. With it you write only server-side Java code and Vaadin will create a slick and professional browser UI for you. Client side can be easily extended using standard GWT (also pure Java), and there are no HTML templates, tag libraries or XML configuration involved at all. A Vaadin UI is fully Ajax'ed and lazy loading out of the box, and it easily integrates with any server side technologies, eg. Spring.
In addition to the development model advantages you get top-notch documentation, a bi-weekly update schedule, a very lively community filled with helpful experts, 100+ useful open source add-ons, and a 10 year old backing company with help on hand should you need it.

JavaScript/CSS vs. Silverlight vs. Flex

We currently have a quite complex business application that contains a huge lot of JavaScript code for making the user interface & interaction feel as close to working with a traditional desktop application as possible (since that's what our users want). Over the years, this Javascript code has grown and grown, making it hard to manage & maintain and making it ever more likely that adding new functionallity will break some existing one. Needless to say, lots of this code also isn't state of the art anymore.
Thus, we have some ongoing discussion whether the client-side part of the application should be written anew in either Flex or Silverlight, or written anew with some state of the art JavaScript framework like jQuery, or whether we should simply carry on with what we have and gradually try to replace the worst bits of the existing code. What makes this even harder to decide is that writing the UI anew will probable cost us 6-12 person months.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that issue (maybe some of you have already had to make a similar decission).
EDIT: To answer some of the questions that came up with the answers: The back-end code is written in C#, the target audience are (usually) non-technical users from the companies we sell the software to (not the general public, but not strictly internal users either), the software 'only' has to run in desktop browsers but not necessarily on mobile devices, and the client app is a full-blown UI.

In all honesty, I would refactor the old JavaScript code and not rewrite the application. Since you are asking about which platform to put it in, I would guess that your team isn't an expert in any of them (not slamming the team, it's just a simple fact that you have to consider when making a decision). This will work against you as you'll have double duty rewriting and learning how to do things on the new platform.
By keeping it in JavaScript, you can slowly introduce a framework if you choose and do it iteratively (Replace on section of code, test it, release it, and fix any bugs). This will allow you to do it at a slower pace and get feedback along the way. That way too, if the project is canceled part way through, you aren't out all the work, because the updated code is being used by the end users. Remember the waterfall model, which is essentially what a full swap out of will be almost never works.
As much as I hate to admit this, as it is always the most fun for developers, shifting platforms, and replacing an entire system at once rarely works. There are countless examples of this, Netscape for one. Here is the post from Spolsky on it. (I would also recommend the book Dreaming in Code. It is an excellent example of a software project that failed and how and why). Remember to rewrite a system from scratch you are essentially going to have to go through every line of code and figure what it does and why. At first you think you can skip it, but eventually it comes down to this. Like you said, your code is old, and that means there are most likely hacks in it to get something done. Some of these you can ignore, and others will be, "I didn't know the system needed it to do that."

These things spring to mind:
As you have a .Net backend and you have some ability to force your customers onto a specific platform, Silverlight is an option;
Since your client is a full-blown UI you want widgets and possibly other features like Drag and Drop;
I haven't seen any requirements that to me would justify starting over (which often doesn't work out) in Flex/Silverlight (eg streaming video, SVG support. Added to your team's familiarity with Javascript, I think you can't make a compelling case for doing it in anything other than Javascript.
But of course Javascript is lots of things and there are [lots of Javascript frameworks1. The most important divider is whether your intent is to "decorate" a set of Web pages or you need a full set of Widgets to create a desktop-like application on the Web. Your question indicate it is the latter.
As such--and I may get downvoted for saying this--I don't think jQuery is the answer and I say this as someone who loves jQuery. jQuery (imho) is great to enhance Webpages and abstract cross-browser low-level functionality but the most important factor for complex UI developer is this:
It's all about the widgets.
And yes I'm aware of jQuery UI but it's a lot sparser than the others when it comes to widgets. I suggest you take a look at the samples and widget galleries of some frameworks:
YUI Examples Gallery;
ExtJS demo; and
SmartClient feature explorer.
The others (jQuery, Dojo, Mootools, Prototype) are more "compact" frameworks arguably less suited to your purpose.
Also consider the license of each framework when making your decision.
My thoughts on the above three are:
ExtJS has somewhat angered the community in that it started out as LGPL but had a controversial license change (that thread is at 76 pages!) to GPL/commercial at version 2.1. The problem with that the community no longer has an active participation in the framework's development. Not the mainline version anyway. This means it's being developed and supported by a small team (possibly one person) rather than the community. IMHO it's not worth paying a commercial license for that and GPL is probably prohibitive in your situation;
YUI is supported by Yahoo and available under a far more permissive and far less invasive BSD license. It's mature, well-used and well worth serious consideration; and
SmartClient impresses me a lot. It has perhaps the most permissive license of all (LGPL), is roughly seven years old, has an incredibly impressive array of widgets available. Check out their feature explorer.
Your decision should be based on how you get as much of your application "for free" as possible. You don't want to spending valuable developer time doing things like:
Coding UI widgets like trees and accordions;
Testing and fixing cross-browser Javascript and CSS issues;
Creating homegrown frameworks that greatly duplicate what existing frameworks do and do well.
I would seriously look at one of the above three as your path forward.

This decision is usually less about the technology, and more about your skill sets and comfort zones.
If you have guys that eat and breathe Javascript, but know nothing about .net or Flash/Flex then there's nothing wrong with sticking with Javascript and leaning on a library like jQuery or Prototype.
If you have skills in either of the others then you might get a quicker result using Silverlight or Flex, as you get quite a lot of functionality "for free" with both of them.

My opinion on this one's pretty simple: unless the app needs to be accessible publicly, unless it needs to be search-engine optimized and findable, and/or there's an otherwise compelling case for its having to remain strictly text-based, then the chips are stacked in favor of rich-client runtimes like Flash or Silverlight right out of the gate.
A big reason, if not the biggest, is that they eliminate the complexities of developing for multiple browsers and platforms. Again: they eliminate the runtime-environment variable. No more debugging old versions of Netscape and IE, no more object detection and consequent branching, no more wacky CSS hacks -- one codebase, and you're done. Offloading the runtime environment to Adobe or Microsoft will save you time, money and headaches, all else equal. (Sure, there's YUI, JQuery, etc., but they don't eliminate that variable -- they just abstract it. And they don't abstract all of it, either -- only some of it; ultimately, it's still up to you to test, debug, retest, debug, repeat.)
Of course, your situation's a bit more complicated by the existing-codebase problem, and it's difficult to say definitively which way you should go, because only you've got the code, and we're just geeks with opinions. But assuming, just by your asking the question, that a refactoring of your existing codebase would involve a significant-enough undertaking as to warrant even considering an alternative (and probably comparatively foreign) technology in the first place, which it sounds like it would, then my response is that your curiosity is well-placed, and that you should give them both a serious look before making a decision.
For my part, I'm a longtime server-side guy, ASP.NET/C# for the past several years, and I've written many a text-based line-of-business app in my time, the last few with strong emphasis on delivering rich soverign UIs with JavaScript. I've also spent the last couple of years almost exclusively with Flex. I've got experience in both worlds. And I can tell you without hesitation that right now, it's everyone else's job to beat Flex: it's just an amazingly versatile and productive product, and for line-of-business apps, it remains leaps and bounds ahead of Silverlight. I just can't recommend it highly enough; the data-binding and event-handling features alone are incredible time-savers, to say nothing of the complete freedom you'll have over layout, animation, etc. The list goes on.
So, my advice: take a long, careful look at Flex. In the end, you might find a ground-up rewrite is just too massive an undertaking to justify, and that's fine -- only you can make that determination. (And to be fair, you've just as much ability to make a mess of a Flex project as you do with a JavaScript project -- I know. I've done it.) But all told, Flex is probably the least-limiting, most flexible, most feature-rich and productive option out there right now, so it's certainly worth considering. Good luck!

Any javascript you have that has been developed 'Over the years' probably doesn't look anything like what's possible today. You undoubtedly have a lot of useful code there. nonetheless. So my recommendation would be re-write in javascript using jQuery and make use of one of the available GUI add-ons, perhaps look at Yahoos stuff. You will also be targeting the widest audience this way.

The GUI technology should be first and foremost determined by your target audience. For instance, if you target englobes iPhone users, I would not recommend Flex, because iPhone doesn't have a flash player at the moment.
Bear in mind that if you switch to a full fledged GUI toolkit like Silverlight, your users may find the L&F unnatural, since the usual request-reply cycle is not so evident with client-side frameworks.
After that, it is your developers that should have a word to say. Every toolkit needs maintenance, and if you are switching to a whole new toolkit the developers will have to familiarize with the new toolkit, which can be costly.
My suggestion is that you stick to javascript, since your devs are familiar with it, and gradually replace the old javascript with a new toolkit like prototype, jQuery or any other. You will probably redo some of the old stuff faster using a state-of-the-art toolkit. Remember that you can build beautiful apps with any tookit.

We have developed an extremely rich application using EXTJS with C# and a some C++ on the server. Not only do we have clients who are happy with the interface in their desktop browsers but with very little tweaking to the Javascript we were able to provide web browser support. Also, we have clients in third-world countries who cannot use Flash or Silverlight apps due to their field personnel using kiosks in internet cafes (many of which don't have Flash installed - forget Silverlight!). I think these issues and others make up for the difficulty of coding a complex app in javascript...

Check this comparison table for Flex vs Javascript:

Should I use Google Web Toolkit for my new webapp?

I would like to create a database backed interactive AJAX webapp which has a custom (specific kind of events, editing) calendaring system. This would involve quite a lot of JavaScript and AJAX, and I thought about Google Web Toolkit for the interface and Ruby on Rails for server side.
Is Google Web Toolkit reliable and good? What hidden risks might be if I choose Google Web Toolkit? Can one easily combine it with Ruby on Rails on server side? Or should I try to use directly a JavaScript library like jQuery?
I have no experience in web development except some HTML, but I am an experienced programmer (c++, java, c#), and I would like to use only free tools for this project.

RoR is actually one of the things the GWT is made to work well with, as long as you're using REST properly. It's in the Google Web Toolkit Applications book, and you can see a demo from the book using this kind of idea here. That's not to say that you won't have any problems, but I think the support is definitely out there for it.
There's a neat project for making RoR/GWT easy that you can find here (MIT license). I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but it looks like a good amount of thought has been put into it. One catch is that it looks like it hasn't been fully tested with 2.1 Rails yet, just 2.0, so you may run into a few (probably minor and fixable) errors.

If you are looking to integrate GWT with non-Java backends such as ROR, PHP etc., you should bear in mind that GWT 1.5 now supports JavaScript Overlay types. This feature lets you write classes that can be mapped over the top of native JavaScript objects to easily provide accessor methods for properties of those objects and other extended functionality.
See this link for more details:
JavaScript Overlay Types
So you could return JSON encoded data from your backend via AJAX calls, parse it into a JavaScript Object and then access the data through your GWT Java code using the overlay classes you've created. Or when you render your page you can render static config data as JavaScript Objects and read it in via this mechanism, rather than having to do an AJAX call to grab the data.

If you know JAVA, and have somewhere you can host it (like a tomcat or glassfish container) I would recommend that much more than using Ruby for the back end. The main reason is that then you can share all of your objects, and use the built in RPC mechanism. I've done this for quite a lot of our projects and it's a huge timesaver, not to mention that the code is less error prone, because you don't convert your java objects to anything and then back again.
I have linked my GWT with Rails before, using the to_json function in Rails and then reading the JSON in GWT. It's all supported, but it is far more annoying than just doing the back end in JAVA.
Of course if you have cheap hosting, then Java containers are pretty much out of the question, in which case I would think Rails would be the next best thing.

GWT is very high quality with a great community. However you do need to know CSS if you want to adjust the look of things (you will) - CSS can do a lot of the layout, just like regular web if you want it to. Libraries like GWT-ext or ExtGWT can help a bit as they have stunning "out of the box" looks but for a price (extra size to your app).

You can code everything in Java using GWT, and you can integrate existing 3rd party javascript libraries with it. It's very good. I've never used RoR much though, so can't say anything about that.

If you're experienced in Java but not in Javascript/CSS, then GWT is going to be a lifesaver (unless you want to learn them, of course). CSS has so many little fiddly details. It is not uncommon to spend half a day fixing a 2 pixel misalignment that only occurs in IE6.
I am not sure about how easy it would be to use ROR for the back end... It is possible, I am sure, since GWT ajax communication is just servlets. But they provide some really nice functionality for passing Java objects back and forth which you won't be able to utilize if your server isn't also using Java.

I wrote about some of the disadvantages of GWT recently. Mainly, the disadvantages are: long deployment cycle for changes to some parts of the application and a rather steep learning curve. As a seasoned Java programmer, the second should be less of a problem and if you use a seperate backend, the first is also mitigated (as a complete redeploy is primarily required when you change the 'server' part of the application).

GWT is a wonderful framework with lots of potential. Keep in mind that it's still quite new, though. There are some unresolved bugs that can really annoy you, and they usually require ugly workarounds to get past. The community is great but you'll probably end up with a few problems sooner or later that Google can't answer yet.
But hey, I say go for it. The potential for GWT is awesome, and I bet it's future will be bright.

You should definitely use GWT for a new project (it's pretty easy to use in an old project too).
I my experience it's very fast to learn and use. The compiled javascript code is much better than anything you could ever write by hand and it works fast too.
Another benefit is the ability to debug you're code (which is hell with javascript alone)

This blog has inputs from many experienced users of GWT and have some great discussion points. I personally have huge experience with varied UI Frameworks. I will add my two cents. Lets look at fundamental advantages and disadvantages of GWT
Fundamental Advantage
GWT takes the web layer programming to JAVA. So, the obvious advantages of Java start getting into play. It will provide Object Oriented programming. It will also provide great debugging and compile time checks. Since it generates HTML and Javascript, it will also have ability to hide some complexity within its generator.
Fundamental Disadvantage
The disadvantage starts from the same statement. GWT takes the web layer programming to JAVA. If you know JAVA, probably you will never look out for an alternative language to write your business logic. It's self sufficient and great. But when it comes to writing configurations for a JAVA application. We use property files, database, XML etc. We never store configurations in a JAVA class file. Think hard, why is that?
This is because configuration is a static data. It often require hierarchy. It is supposed to be readable. It never requires compilation. It doesn't require knowledge of JAVA programming language. In short, it is a different ball game. Now the question is, how it relates to our discussion?
Now, lets think about a web page. Do you think when we write a web page we write a business logic? Absolutely not. Web page is just a configuration. It is a configuration of hierarchical containers and fields. We need to write business logic for the data that will be captured from and displayed on the web page and not to create the web page itself.
Previous paragraph makes a very very strong statement. This will explain why HTML and XML based web pages are still the most popular ones. XML is the best in business to write configurations. A framework must allow a clear separation of web page from business logic (the goal of MVC framework). By doing this a web designer will be able to apply his skills of visualization and artistry to create brilliant looking web pages just by configuring XMLs and without being bothered about the intricacies of a programming language. Developers will be able to use their best in business JAVA for writing business logic.
Finally, lets talk about the repercussions in direct terms. GWT breaks this principal so it is bound to fail. The cost for developing GWT application will be very high because you will need multiskill programmers to write web pages. The required look and feel will be very hard to achieve. The turn around time of modifying the web page will be very high because of unnecessary compilation. And lastly, since you are writing web pages in JAVA it is very easy to corrupt it with business logic. Unknowingly you will introduce complexities that must be avoided.

You could also consider Grails ("Groovy on Rails") which gives you the benefits of a Rails framework and the use of the Java VM.

Our team recently asked the same question, and we chose to go with GWT, especially since the designer plugin made working with GWT more accessible to non-java experts on the team. Whoever makes this choice, just beware you DON'T use the GWT Designer plugin !! It has not been updated (in at least a year, apparently) to create a GWT application that is compatible with IE8.
Our team had almost completed our application layouts, which were working perfectly in Chrome, FF and Safari. Then they blew up in IE. IE 7 would load partial pages (but not composite includes), and IE8 was not even able to load up the application. It just hung.
The designer plugin has buttons that allow the user to add CellTable widgets that are not IE compatible (CellTable, DeckPanel, Horizontal Panel, Vertical Panel, among others). These will cause intense pain when the layouts have to be re-done in java without assistance from the designer.
Experienced GWT users love it, but the designer plugin will kill you.