Re: Patch: AWTException

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> I'm thinking of building our AWT stubs by default.  Any reason why
> not?

The only argument I have against that is that "make install" already takes a
long time to call install-sh on each of those CNI header files, and each
time we add new classes this gets worse! I want a quicker
build/install/debug cycle. Is there a way we can speed up "make install"?

Other than that, I agree we should start building them. I'd like to see
--enable-java-awt and --disable-java-awt configure options. This could later
be expanded to "--enable-java-awt=gtk" or whatever peer type you want to
build.

> Maybe as a "java-awt.so" library?

Personally I think "libgcjawt.so" sounds better, but I guess "java-awt.so"
would mean that class.forName() can work on it. What we should consider is
ultimatly having a extendable mechanism where the compiler can automatically
link with the right libraries. Typing "-ljava-awt" won't be too much of a
problem for now, but it would be cool if the compiler could automagically
link the right libraries based on what your code is using.

regards

  [ bryce ]