AWT

John Murga john@murga.org
Thu Nov 7 15:21:00 GMT 2002


Hey

RARD> I think it's important to check this, 'cause is better to start from a
RARD> 1.1 implementation than for a 0.1 implementation (-:

The classpath AWT implementation seems more complete than the kaffe one (and
pretty slick in places), it is just not easy to get working on some environments.

>> I'm just idly throwing ideas into the wind at this point...
>> How about AWT being an optional GCJ library ?

RARD> What I really like is a somehow pluggable awt library, so i can run an
RARD> AWT application using the GTK implementation, or a QT implementation,
RARD> or a Win32 implementation, or an X only implementation... etc... so the
RARD> user can see the application he want's to run using his(her) preferred
RARD> widget library.

You could make it "plugable" at compile time... so that a commercial project
targeting solely Linux could (for example) use the current more complete
implementation, while a GPL project targeting Linux and Windows could use a
more minimal kaffe-esque implementation (without worrying about GPL issues)...

And a console app could choose to not support AWT at all... making the runtime
smaller.

Cheers
JohnM




More information about the Java mailing list