Re: java.beans

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>> I'll see what makes sense too about breaking out awt, beans,
>> etc. as separate *.so from libgcj.so.  If anyone feels strongly one
>> way or the other, please send me your input.

Bryce> java.beans should probibly go in libgcjawt - these are
Bryce> (usually) complimentary. I do think that awt should be in a
Bryce> seperate .so (if only so it makes it easy to switch awt
Bryce> implementations at runtime), but we should perhaps try to avoid
Bryce> creating too many .so's where they're not really
Bryce> neccessary/useful.

What do you (or anybody) think of the idea of having just one big
libgcj.so and then solving the (eventual -- we only *wish* we had this
problem) libX11 problem by loading it at runtime?  That is, just the
AWT native peers would be put in their own library.

Tom