Hi, (Moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
