Mark Hindess wrote:
> On 27 June 2006 at 7:00, "bootjvm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Concerning Mark's observation lsat week on AWT/Swing
>> where only a, "couple of files" were C++ instead of C
>> source code:
>>
>> I thing it would make library maintenance easier when everything is
>> done in one single, regular manner. If everything is C but a short
>> segment, it would make the world run better to not have exceptions to
>> the rule if they could be converted into C. Mixed language projects
>> in a mode like this _often_ have maintenance issues in this arena.
>> Therefore, I would suggest this conversion be done.
>
> I'm looking at the integration of the native code from the awt/swing
> 'misc' dependency right now.
>
> I think these natives will quite likely get merged in to luni at some
> point. At that point, it would definitely make sense to convert them
> to C to avoid adding unnecessary requirements to a core element of the
> Harmony classlib.
Yes, I had a brief look and there is similarity / overlap with some of
the functionality in o.a.h.luni.platform. The Accessors would fit in
nicely with that crowd, and we can also extend with some direct object
manipulation code. But that is for another thread.
Regards,
Tim
> On the other hand I'm not quite so concerned about the use of C++ for
> awt - since the requirement there (for ease of use with GDI) is justified.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>> Dan Lydick
>>
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: <harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Date: 6/19/06 6:49:38 AM
>>> Subject: Re: awt and swing integration issues
>>>
>>> My USD0.02...
>>>
>>> 1) If I were to write a GUI toolkit, I can't imagine why I wouldn't use
>>> C++ given relationships like "DialogBox is a Window"
>>>
>>> 2) Isn't it a reasonably safe bet that any platform that has a GUI is
>>> 'advanced' enough to have a reasonable C++ compiler for it?
>>>
>>> I understand the need to stick to the simplicity of C, but I'm not
>>> surprised w/ the C++
>>>
>>> Mark, are you suggesting we convert it back to C?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> Alexey Petrenko wrote:
>>>> 2006/6/18, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>> On 18 June 2006 at 22:16, "Alexey Petrenko"
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> 2006/6/18, Mark Hindess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>>> c) I'm also wondering about the motivation for using C++ when I
>> can't
>>>>>>> see any pressing reason to require this.
>>>>>> You mean that most of the native code is C++ but not C?
>>>>> Yes. It seems to be a mixture of C and C++ and although I only looked
>>>>> at a couple of files I didn't see anything that really needed C++
>>>>> features.
>>>>>
>>>>> For portability I'd stick to C if C++ isn't really required.
>>>> But C++ gives at least 2 benefits for developer:
>>>> 1. Strict type checking
>>>> 2. It is allow to write env->FindClass("java/lang/Object") instead of
>>>> (*env)->FindClass(env, "java/lang/Object") :)
>>>>
>>>> Windows version also uses GDI+ which is class library.
>>>>
>>>> So I vote for C++...
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
