[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AWT peers (Was: [PATCH] More List fixes)
From: |
Mark Wielaard |
Subject: |
AWT peers (Was: [PATCH] More List fixes) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:50:31 +0100 |
Hi,
(Moved to address@hidden/address@hidden and added Chris and
Stephane since they both work on AWT peers.)
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 00:20, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2003, at 1:09 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > There's been some discussion about trying to make our peers conform to
> > the JDK specification, even though it is undocumented. It turns out
> > there are other peer implementations around, it might be useful to let
> > them work with our implementation.
>
> > What do you think about the compatibility idea?
>
> Are there any independently developed peer implementations (for Sun's
> JRE) that work with anything newer than JDK1.1? I'm not aware of any.
>
> Compatibility would be difficult given that there is no published spec,
> also the interface is no doubt quite complex. The benefits would be
> questionable - it would let us run our peers on Sun's JDK for debugging
> purposes, but I don't think that advantage is worth the effort that
> would be involved.
>
> In the long run, however, it may well be worth stabilizing and
> documenting _our_ peer interface so that others can develop peers
> independently of libgcj.
The only free AWT peer implementation I know of is PJA (Pure Java AWT).
But I haven't tried it with any of the free VMs and our awt
implementation. http://www.eteks.com/pja/en/
Both Chris and Stephane are working on AWT peers so they might have an
opinion.
Cheers,
Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- AWT peers (Was: [PATCH] More List fixes),
Mark Wielaard <=