[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [platform-swt-dev] SWTToolkit as AWT Peers
|
Another thing to add about 1.1 is that this implementation was targeted
towards the embedded space, and as such was implemented to PersonalJava
spec rather than J2SE. PersonalJava calls for 1.1 level API and features.
--Andrew
"David Whiteman/RAL/OTI" <David_Whiteman@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-swt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/26/2001 08:49 AM
Please respond to platform-swt-dev
To: platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject: RE: [platform-swt-dev] SWTToolkit as AWT Peers
Yes, it's mostly just 1.1. It doesn't technically use the *Peer classes
to implement the native implementation. SWT logically serves as a peer
layer, but you don't get anything SWT-related if you call getPeer() on a
Component in BBAWT; that's one of the noted deviations. If you really
need SWT to implement the Peer interface, then you'd have to roll your
own. However, I think that's an implementation detail that is not
necessary for the Eclipse integration goals you're trying to achieve, if I
understand you correctly. Probably the best test would be for you to run
a lot of your favorite apps and snippets in our AWT to see if it runs your
code as you expect - if it doesn't, we'd love to hear about it.
Probably the biggest areas our AWT deviates from the 1.2 spec are in 2D
graphics and printing, partly because a lot of that isn't currently (or
wasn't previously) available in SWT for all platforms that we were
interested in. Also, Swing kind of limps along on BBAWT (and only Swing
1.1.x works at all).
Regards,
David
--
David Whiteman
OTI Raleigh
david_whiteman@xxxxxxx
"Scott Stanchfield" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-swt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
11/26/2001 10:28 AM
Please respond to platform-swt-dev
To: <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc:
Subject: RE: [platform-swt-dev] SWTToolkit as AWT Peers
Isn't the personal config stuff only AWT v1.1, though? There were a ton of
changes to how the peers are managed in 1.2 and beyond...
Or did I misunderstand something?
-- Scott