Working on Kaffe/X-AWT port...
Mon Aug 25 23:14:00 GMT 2003
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> I only want to let you know, that IÂ´m currently working on a port of
> KaffeÂ´s X-awt to gcj.
> In my opinion a direct binding to the X-lib has the folllowing advantages:
> * No need for GTK or another library (only X of course)
> * Faster primitive drawing functions, especally important when using
> "lightweight" toolkits based on component.
> * very portable: A simply x-wrapper (which implements only the needed
> subset of the X-lib) should do the job.
While a AWT implementation that only depends on Xlib would be useful,
I think an implementation based on Gtk is more valuable at this point.
My initial concern is that Xlib is too low-level, so it will be a lot
of work, but if you're posting a working implementation that is less of
a concern. Additionally, it will be difficult to integrate properly
with modern window managers, tools, and look-and-feel. The main value
of an Xlib-only implementation would be reduced memory usage, which is
primarily an issue for small embedded devices. Your "target market"
would be embedded devices/applications for which Gtk is too bloated,
but AWT on X11 is not too bloated. That's a rather small segment, and
it is getting smaller every day.
> One question: This awt implementation uses an helper class stated in
> kaffe/util/Ptr which seems a replacement for the pointer-emulation using
> ints. They use it, because of 64-bit compatibility. But the Ptr class is
> simply a abstract class, so could anybody please explain me, how that
For CNI we use gnu.gcj.RawData.
> PS: Btw: Is lgpl a problem for gcj?
It could a problem if you want to make it part of libgcj, since our
policy is to use GPL+exception. LGPL is compatible with this, but
is more restrictive. And LGPL is especially problematic for small
embedded devices that use static linking, so the interest in AWT-on-Xlib
would be further reduced ...
More information about the Java