Stanley Brown stanley.brown@zimmer.com
Tue Nov 25 21:03:00 GMT 2003

 >I don't think including binary-only modules in CVS to get around

>licensing restrictions would be a very popular decision :-)
Im not looking to win any popularity contests with my original posting 
but Im also not advocating anything really change. 

>First, SWT doesn't expose enough functionality to properly implement the
>AWT, so native-code workarounds would still be required. 
There are already projects using SWT to implement AWT.  I am not aware 
of any issues.

>Second, unlike GTK, SWT is not a widely-deployed, stable library -- in fact, I don't
>think SWT is even distributed separately from eclipse yet.  
SWT is available seperate from Eclipse (look under the Platform 
project).  SWT uses GTK in Linux environments so I dont think comparing 
the two is worthwhile.

>Third, SWT
>is an extra layer and so would introduce some performance overhead. 
I have no tests to say otherwise.  Shrug.

>Fourth, SWT doesn't work on 64-bit systems.  
This is being fixed the last time I checked.  I would hazard to guess 
that this will be out in the next release of SWT.

>Fifth, GTK peers already
>exist and are semi-working.
GTK on Win32 is not well supported.  I dont even know if exists for the 
Mac.  The widgets are not native to the platform and have a Gnomish 
feel.  Using GTK on Windows also adds a lot of memory for even the 
simplest application and has performance issues.  We wont even go into 
all the dll's you have to distribute to get this to work.

More information about the Java mailing list