One of the design proposed for a web application I am working on suggests using javascript to generate all html content. Basically to create a page in the application you would use a homemade javascript framework to build the dynamic html on the page. The pages of this webpage are very complex and all of the html markup would be generated via javascript using our custom built framework. The framework would essentially need a method to create each element on the page you wanted to produce.
What are some of the pros and cons of this approach?
The biggest cons of it are that you must rely on the end user's client browser to correctly render all of your content. An out of date browser or an untested browser is likely to result in broken content or no content. This is distinct from and more severe than the problems those same browsers encounter with HTML & CSS they cannot correctly render. If the markup is supplied to the browser, it may incorrectly render the CSS, but at least the content will be accessible. Using a script to generate all the markup can easily result in no markup being generated.
Then there are the users who run without JavaScript, or with something like NoScript blocking most scripts. They'll not see any of your content either. Thirdly, your content will not be indexed by most search engines.
Addendum
Relating to developer skill sets, working strictly from a JavaScript framework could tromp on the web development division of labor somewhat, if you have such a division. Unless the framework is able to maintain a good separation between the generation of markup, CSS, & application script, your programmers may find themselves more deeply in the role of designer and content editor than they are accustomed to (if you have a division of labor between those aspects of development).
From the comments below, we learn that this is intended for an intranet application in a controlled browser environment. This moots the end-user testing issues mentioned above to some degree, but there is always a danger of a browser upgrade breaking application code in JavaScript.
I cannot think of any positive outcomes that would outweight the potential negative outcomes (by my own judgement, anyway)
The strategy adopted by serious web sites is to start with basic HTML, then add CSS to tidy the layout, then add script to make the users' life easier by enhancing functionality (and not to add time wasting and annoying animations). That way you always have a fallback if something doesn't work or scripting fails for some reason. I deliberately left out the "add annoying advertisements" since they aren't part of the functional design.
To design the site, you should start by determining what it is that your web site is supposed to do (i.e. the vision). Then set out some goals that achieve that vision. Then chose the most efficient design to deliver on the goals—at this point you should not have yet decided on the implementation technology.
Then choose the most appropriate technology and design based on reliability, maintainability, longevity and supportability. That will lead you to a detailed design and implementation.
If, after all that, the best option is a 100% scripted client, so be it. But the fact that very, very few web sites have chosen that architecture makes me very much doubt that it'll be the winner.
Related
I am building a web application with Angular JS, I need this to be fully SEO-optimized.
It seems that for a few, google is able to crawl angular app but it is not clear if it can read everything (eg I read that directives cannot be interpreted).
So today, is an angular app fully google-compatible even if we use the full set of JS functions? What about other engines? Do we still need fantomJS static generation for Yahoo or microsoft?
As of today, AngularJS is still not fully SEO-optimized. Thus, a lot of developers still find it necessary to use services like Predender.io or cooking up their own implementation by using PhantomJS
Great strides have been made towards SEO-friendliness, especially when talking about AngularJS 2.0 since it allows you to render HTML on the server side (More info here).
However, even with the new additions it's better to retain control over what the search engines are seeing by creating pre-rendered versions of your site.
Here is a great article about this very topic: https://builtvisible.com/javascript-framework-seo/
To quote some parts of it:
Google can render and crawl JS sites. This, however is no guarantee that the outcome will be an SEO friendly, perfectly optimised site! Technical SEO expertise is needed, especially during testing. This will ensure that you have an SEO friendly site architecture, targeting the right keywords. A site that continues to rank despite the changes made in Google’s crawl.
In my opinion, it’s better to retain tighter control of what’s being rendered by serving Google a pre-rendered, flat version of your site. This way, all the classic rules of SEO apply and it should be easier to detect and diagnose potential SEO issues during testing.
As far as other search engines, it seems like they currently don't support javascript rendering yet: https://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/webmaster-guidelines-30fba23a
The technology used on your website can sometimes prevent Bingbot from being able to find your content. Rich media (Flash, JavaScript, etc.) can lead to Bing not being able to crawl through navigation, or not see content embedded in a webpage. To avoid any issue, you should consider implementing a down-level experience which includes the same content elements and links as your rich version does. This will allow anyone (Bingbot) without rich media enabled to see and interact with your website.
When a developing a web app, versus a web site, what reasons are there to use multiple HTML pages, rather than using one html page and doing everything through Javascript?
I would expect that it depends on the application -- maybe -- but would appreciate any thoughts on the subject.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
Based on the responses here, and some of my own research, if you wanted to do a single-page, fully JS-Powered site, some useful tools would seem to include:
JQuery Plug Ins:
JQuery History:
http://balupton.com/projects/jquery-history
JQuery Address:
http://plugins.jquery.com/project/jquery-address
JQuery Pagination:
http://plugins.jquery.com/project/pagination
Frameworks:
Sproutcore
http://www.sproutcore.com/
Cappucino
http://cappuccino.org/
Possibly, JMVC:
http://www.javascriptmvc.com/
page based applications provide:
ability to work on any browser or device
simpler programming model
they also provide the following (although these are solvable by many js frameworks):
bookmarkability
browser history
refresh or F5 to repeat action
indexability (in case the application is public and open)
One of the bigger reasons is going to be how searchable your website is.
Doing everything in javascript is going to make it complicated for search engines to crawl all content of your website, and thus not fully indexing it. There are ways around this (with Google's recent AJAX SEO guidelines) but I'm not sure if all search engines support this yet. On top of that, it's a little bit more complex then just making separate pages.
The bigger issue, whether you decide to build multiple HTML pages, or you decide to use some sort of framework or CMS to generate them for you, is that the different sections of your website have URL's that are unique to them. E.g., an about section would have a URL like mywebsite.com/about, and that URL is used on the actual "about" link within the website.
One of the biggest downfalls of single-page, Ajax-ified websites is complexity. What might otherwise be spread across several pages suddenly finds its way into one huge, master page. Also, it can be difficult to coordinate the state of the page (for example, tracking if you are in Edit mode, or Preview mode, etc.) and adjusting the interface to match.
Also, one master page that is heavy on JS can be a performance drag if it has to load multiple, big JS files.
At the OP's request, I'm going to discuss my experience with JS-only sites. I've written four relevant sites: two JS-heavy (Slide and SpeedDate) and two JS-only (Yazooli and GameCrush). Keep in mind that I'm a JS-only-site bigot, so you're basically reading John Hinkley on the subject of Jody Foster.
The idea really works. It produces gracefully, responsive sites at very low operational costs. My estimate is that the cost for bandwidth, CPU, and such goes to 10% of the cost of running a similar page-based site.
You need fewer but better (or at least, better-trained) programmers. JavaScript is an powerful and elegant language, but it has huge problems that a more rigid and unimaginative language like Java doesn't have. If you have a whole bunch of basically mediocre guys working for you, consider JSP or Ruby instead of JS-only. If you are required to use PHP, just shoot yourself.
You have to keep basic session state in the anchor tag. Users simply expect that the URL represents the state of the site: reload, bookmark, back, forward. jQuery's Address plug-in will do a lot of the work for you.
If SEO is an issue for you, investigate Google Ajax Crawling. Basically, you make a very simple parallel site, just for search engines.
When would I not use JS-only? If I were producing a site that was almost entirely content, where the user did nothing but navigate from one place to another, never interacting with the site in a complicated manner. So, Wikipedia and ... well, that's about it. A big reference site, with a lot of data for the user to read.
modularization.
multiple files allows you to mre cleanly break out different workflow paths and process parts.
chances are your Business Rules are something that do not usually directly impact your layout rules and multiple files would better help in editing on what needs to be edited without the risk of breaking something unrelated.
I actually just developed my first application using only one page.
..it got messy
My idea was to create an application that mimicked the desktop environment as much as possible. In particular I wanted a detailed view of some app data to be in a popup window that would maintain it's state regardless of the section of the application they were in.
Thus my frankenstein was born.
What ended up happening due to budget/time constraints was the code got out of hand. The various sections of my JavaScript source got muddled together. Maintaining the proper state of various views I had proved to be... difficult.
With proper planning and technique I think the 'one-page' approach is a very easy way to open up some very interesting possibilities (ex: widgets that maintain state across application sections). But it also opens up many... many potential problem areas. including...
Flooding the global namespace (if you don't already have your own... make one)
Code organization can easily get... out of hand
Context - It's very easy to
I'm sure there are more...
In short, I would urge you to stay away from relying on JavaScript dependency for the compatibility issue's alone. What I've come to realize is there is simply no need rely on JavaScript to everything.
I'm actually in the process of removing JavaScript dependencies in loo of Progressive Enhancement. It just makes more sense. You can achieve the same or similar effects with properly coded JavaScript.
The idea is too...
Develop out well-formatted, fully functional application w/o any JavaScript
Style it
Wrap the whole thing with JavaScript
Using Progressive Enhancement one can develop an application that delivers the best possible experience for the user that is possible.
For some additional arguments, check out The Single Page Interface Manifesto and some (mostly) negative reaction to it on Hacker News (link at the bottom of the SPI page):
The Single Page Interface Manifesto: http://itsnat.sourceforge.net/php/spim/spi_manifesto_en.php
stofac, first of all, thanks for the link to the Single Page Interface (SPI) Manifesto (I'm the author of this boring text)
Said this, SPI != doing everything through Javascript
Take a look to this example (server-centric):
http://www.innowhere.com/insites/
The same in GAE:
http://itsnatsites.appspot.com/
More info about the GAE approach:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=60270
In my opinion coding a complex SPI application/web site fully on JavaScript is very very complex and problematic, the best approach in my opinion is "hybrid programming" for SPI, a mix of server-centric for big state management and client-centric (a.k.a JavaScript by hand) for special effects.
Doing everything on a single page using ajax everywhere would break the browser's history/back button functionality and be annoying to the user.
I utterly despise JS-only sites where it is not needed. That extra condition makes all the difference. By way of example consider the oft quoted Google Docs, in this case it not only helps improve experiences it is essential. But some parts of Google Help have been JS-only and yet it adds nothing to the experience, it is only showing static content.
Here are reasons for my upset:
Like many, I am a user of NoScript and love it. Pages load faster, I feel safer and the more distracting adverts are avoided. The last point may seem like a bad thing for webmasters but I don't want anyone to get rewarded for pushing annoying flashy things in my face, if tactless advertisers go out of business I consider it natural selection.
Obviously this means some visitors to your site are either going to be turned away or feel hassled by the need to provide a temporary exclusion. This reduces your audience.
You are duplicating effort. The browser already has a perfectly good history function and you shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel by redrawing the previous page when a back button is clicked. To make matters worse going back a page shouldn't require re-rendering. I guess I am a student of If-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it School (from Don't-Repeat-Yourself U.).
There are no HTTP headers when traversing "pages" in JS. This means no cache controls, no expiries, content cannot be adjusted for requested language nor location, no meaningful "page not found" nor "unavailable" responses. You could write error handling routines within your uber-page that respond to failed AJAX fetches but that is more complexity and reinvention, it is redundant.
No caching is a big deal for me, without it proxies cannot work efficiently and caching has the greatest of all load reducing effects. Again, you could mimic some caching in your JS app but that is yet more complexity and redundancy, higher memory usage and poorer user experience overall.
Initial load times are greater. By loading so much Javascript on the first visit you are causing a longer delay.
More JavaScript complexity means more debugging in various browsers. Server-side processing means debugging only once.
Unfuddle (a bug-tracker) left a bad taste. One of my most unpleasant web experiences was being forced to use this service by an employer. On the surface it seems well suited; the JS-heavy section is private so doesn't need to worry about search engines, only repeat visitors will be using it so have time to turn off protections and shouldn't mind the initial JS library load.
But it's use of JS is pointless, most content is static. "Pages" were still being fetched (via AJAX) so the delay is the same. With the benefit of AJAX it should be polling in the background to check for changes but I wouldn't get notified when the visible page had been modified. Sections had different styles so there was an awkward re-rendering when traversing those, loading external stylesheets by Javascript is Bad Practice™. Ease of use was sacrificed for whizz-bang "look at our Web 2.0" features. Such a business-orientated application should concentrate on speed of retrieval, but it ended up slower.
Eventually I had to refuse to use it as it was disrupting the team's work flow. This is not good for client-vendor relationships.
Dynamic pages are harder to save for offline use. Some mobile users like to download in advance and turn off their connection to save power and data usage.
Dynamic pages are harder for screen readers to parse. While the number of blind users are probably less than those with NoScript or a mobile connection it is inexcusable to ignore accessibility - and in some countries even illegal, see the "Disability Discrimination Act" (1999) and "Equality Act" (2010).
As mentioned in other answers the "Progressive Enhancement", née "Unobtrusive Javascript", is the better approach. When I am required to make a JS-only site (remember, I don't object to it on principle and there are times when it is valid) I look forward to implementing the aforementioned AJAX crawling and hope it becomes more standardised in future.
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.
I have started using ajax/jQuery in our websites / application. There are many plugins that support degrading the javascript to browsers that dont have javascript enabled and techniques to support this. What are peoples thoughts on javascript support, we build applications rather than just websites and are looking to just support javascript enabled browsers as a pre-requisite assuming that most people or companies have javascript enabled.
Do you find most people have javascript? do you monitor the percentage of javascript/non-javascript browsers (I guess this can be done with website stats) and what are the numbers regarding this?
Whether you should be worried about this really depends on what sort of website you are creating. For instance, if you're creating a rich javascript app, you have to ask yourself if it's worth your time & effort to worry about javascript disabled browsers, as these users are probably not too concerned with using rich user interfaces anyway. Also do you have time to put in the extra work for these browsers as there will be little extra traffic and profit gained (if it's profit making website).
Also note that if javascript is disabled in these user's browsers, there will be much on the web these people cannot use. So in all likelihood they're not heavy users.
According to these metrics, the following percentages of users have JavaScript disabled:
EU: 1.4%
US: 3.05%
But the numbers are from 2007, so they are rather old. I would think the percentages are a bit smaller by now, but who knows?
I know this is a very old thread, but I thought I'd post this for reference:
According to this website, only 0.4% to 2.4% of users had JS turned off. The first test they ran was with about 13,500 users, which is admittedly small for the interwebs, but it's still quite a large amount of people. This data is from 2009
I really feel quite strongly that a well designed web site should remain functional with or without JavaScript switched on. JavaScript, in most cases, is there to enhance existing functionality.
This can usually be achieved by following a few simple rules.
Use unobtrusive JavaScript, avoid in-line (certainly) and in-page JavaScript whenever possible.
Anchors should always link to somewhere, not to # or to JavaScript. If you can't get around it, the link should be created dynamically.
Use forms correctly. A button should always be wrapped in form tags, this way the your functionality can always degrade to the server.
I believe that following these rules makes for a more robust site that is more accessible across multiple platforms. Not to mention the benefits to search engine optimisation, if you rely on JavaScript, the search engine will only see half your site.
I prefer the idea of progressively enhancing rather than planning for degradation. I'm absolutely not developing for the minority that intentionally sabotage their Internet experience by switching JavaScript off. A site built for progressive enhancement will work better on mobile platforms, screen readers and search engines.
Rich
As a whole, I think you can expect any browser that supports CSS will have JavaScript enabled.
However, it's not always a question of JavaScript being enabled/disabled on the browser entirely. Most of my friends/coworkers use NoScript to only allow JavaScript on specific sites.
It depends on what you are doing.
Is it a website or web application?
A website can be done with just static html and, if needed something a little more complex, a little bit of server side programming.
A web application, today, is all about javascript.
So if your visitors have js disabled, they are likely not interested in your application nor any other. So why bother with them?
Just concentrate in the other 98%, where your potential customers/audience is.
It deppends on the size,
Big applications like Gmail often have 'basic html' versions to support old and secured browsers. If you code your ajax with this in mind, you might be able to reuse most of the code.
Medium sized applications, especially if the user uses them regular, will probably not find it worthwhile to support the few percentages.
Small sites / sites that mostly uses basic html navigation, should try to do without javascript. Most of the time, modern css tricks will do better, faster and make more sense codewise.
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.