Re: Merging in more AWT stuff

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>> > Yes - this is cool.  Are you going to check your toolkit in?

Rolf> Sure, if there is a consensus for allowing it in. However, there
Rolf> are some dependencies that need to be resolved before the code
Rolf> can go in, see
Rolf> <URL:http://www.ii.uib.no/~rolfwr/jcnix/dependencies.html>.

I think having it in would be good.  If it is named carefully,
configured carefully, and follows the coding standards, then I can't
think of a reason not to put it in.

Rolf> Bryce has suggested "gnu.java.awt.peer.xlib" for the main
Rolf> toolkit package.

Sounds good, as it fits nicely with Classpath.

Rolf> Some work is needed to resolve some of the dependencies. Linking
Rolf> to libjpeg should be made optional. I'm working towards creating
Rolf> a "plugin" mechanism for image decoders to make this possible.

That sounds good.

What parts of the dependency diagram would be useful in other
situations?  For instance, what could be shared with the Gtk peers?

Rolf> If there is an interest in getting the X toolkit in as soon as
Rolf> possible, it should be easy to replaces the dependencies with
Rolf> temporary stubs.

I don't feel any particular anxiety to get it in.  Sooner is better,
of course, but it is also important to make sure things are done in an
intelligent way.  It's pretty much your call.

Rolf> Either way, I think it's important that multiple toolkits can be
Rolf> configured and compiled in at the same time.

I agree.  Writing the configure support isn't a prerequisite to
checking in your work though.  We can always add configure support
later.  I'm happy to do that, even.

Rolf> Actually, I'd like to see it being possible run several
Rolf> different toolkits concurrently.

That would be cool.  Is it really possible?

Tom