what is the state of awt in lingcj?

Cedric Berger cedric@wireless-networks.com
Fri Jul 13 16:41:00 GMT 2001

Per Bothner wrote:

> Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com> writes:
> > Per Bothner wrote:
> > > I would like to have usable and mostly-compatible implementations
> > > of the Swing components (e.g. JTree) and "models" (e.g. TreeModel).
> > > I care much less about the UI delegate classes, the PLAF (Pluggable
> > > Look and Feel) implementation, the text View classes, or in general
> > > "implementation" classes.  I suspect relatively liitle code uses those
> > > directly, and that's a "experts-only" thing.
> >
> > I've some problem with theses assumptions. IMHO, there is two different kind
> > of applications which will benefit from an AWT/SWING application:
> >
> > 1) embedded system with displays (Palm, Java Phones, ...)
> > 2) desktop applications
> >
> > For embedded applications, Swing is probably too big. What is really needed is
> > a simple, *peerless* AWT implementation. For theses (embedded) applications,
> > the best would be to have a "Xlib peer" approch with Java-written peerless
> > AWT component. This way, embedded developpers would have to reimplement
> > the basic AWT components (Canevas, Component, Window) but all the widgets
> > could then be 100% reused.
> Of course this approach is useful for the desktop too, as you mention
> - I don't think anybody except implementors cares about peers, and
> they only because they're supposed to.  Though for the desktop we have
> the luxury that we can use gtk if we want to and not worry as much
> about overhead.
> >    - no PLAF will mean that very popular development applications (Like JBuilder,
> >      netbeans, ...) will not work because they all tweak the UI in some ways.
> That's not really our concern.  JBuilder is non-Free.  NetBeans requires
> non-Free components, even beyond JDK.

I don't really get your point... gcc is certainly used to compile proprietary programs.....
Moreover, if JBuilder can be one day compiled with GCJ, which will help Borland
run it maybee faster and on more platform, maybee Borland (and other commercial
entities) will see the light and help GCJ development?

> >    - no View class will be worse, because you need to subclass View class if you
> >      want to implement things like "terminal pane", "syntax coloring", ...
> Ideally I would like to implement a complete 100%-compatible Free
> Swing.  That will take years, and I don't see it happening, unless Sun
> decides to open-source Swing.  Lacking that, the question is whether
> there is a 80%-solution-with-20%-of-the-work we can/should aim for.

Good question. I don't really know the answer (i.e. will the GTK peer solution
really give a 80%-solution?)

> > Look what Apple did: If it was possible, I'm sure they would have implemented
> > Mac OS X Look and Feel using their native library. But they didn't do it. They
> > reimplemented the whole L&F using "Pure Java" stuff, and there is many reasons
> > for that.
> Yes.  But they had licensed Swing.  We don't have that option.

And what about, for a 80% solution, distributing GCJ with the Sun's JFC 1.1.1, which
is freely redistributable..... In the mean time, Who knows, maybee Sun will open its
code a little bit more?


> > I believe the Swing over native-widget is a dead-end solution.
> It is certainly not a great solution.  But is it a way we can get an
> 80% solution?
> --
>         --Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/per/

More information about the Java mailing list