I didn't say I want to stay w/o getter methods, but that I want to introduce them. But then not just in that one place, because I remember that people complained about missing getter methods in many AWT interfaces.
So my point was to introduce them in all AWT interfaces where they are missing, and not step by step. (A completely different/better AWT API would be an other discussion - nothing for now) As long as we don't do it consequently, then the X<something>2 approach might be better for now, as it seems we already did with XWindow2. I think it's better to break AWT API compatibility once, instead of many times in many releases. If people want to spread API changes over multiple releases, we would need to clarify in advance that API compatibility is nothing we want to take care for anymore in general - and not doing exceptions on discussion basis every time. Malte. Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote, On 06/30/09 15:31: > Hi Malte, > >> Well, you attended the meeting about AWT improvements with Carsten many >> month (or years?!) ago, where we discussed this. >> >> Maybe you can dig out what our conclusion was that time, maybe with some >> arguments? ;) >> >> Then feel free to use that information and start a discussion thread >> specific to AWT API improvements... > > Hmm? I think I do not get you here. > > I do not have any plans to start an "improve the AWT toolkit" project > here and now. That's just not my focus at the moment. > > Are you seriously suggesting that we should not do the small and > innocent change, but aim for the make-everybody-happy solution instead? > > Is there a good reason to not do the changes incrementally? And no, "we > once decided against getter methods since they are synchronously" is > *not* a good reason, sorry. > > Ciao > Frank > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
