java.beans

[Jeff Sturm]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 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.

java.awt and java.beans are not necessarily related.  One package I am
using relies heavily on java.beans but has no AWT code at all.  The edit
classes that Warren checked in do need java.awt, hence the dependency.

> 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.

I'd be OK with that.  The size of libgcj.so is not really a concern for
me.  I also fear it would become burdensome to subdivide it beyond what
is currently done for java.awt.

-- 
Jeff Sturm
jeff.sturm@appnet.com