>
> Well in JOS it wont matter since it will be the default toolkit for one
> thing.
Yes, but it would be good to be able to test it!
>
> also Id like to say this is part of JADE, and should be in something
> like org.jos.experimental.seancribbs.ui.jade.awt.JOSToolkit.
OK, whatever. In my opinion, the package location is trivial at this
point. That's the easiest thing to change, and can be done on a
moment's notice. Since I'm not posting on CVS or SourceServer, why does
it matter right now?
>
> cant component, container, frame and all that just be lightweight and
> have all the graphics stuff in Window?(since thats where it all comes
> from) and that just use the Screen (or whatever).
Well, I figured that because Window and Frame are similar in standard
AWT, then if one is lightweight, both should be. Besides, it's not good
practice to make each component or container a Window. You set yourself
up for circular references because the AWT hierarchy specifies that
Window is a Container. IMO, component and container are the only
heavyweight peers needed. In looking at the API, apparently Container
has no peer of its own. The ContainerPeer interface is only so a base
class can be provided for Panel, Window and their descendents. The
Container class uses a ComponentPeer, which means that lightweight
containers handle all their containees themselves. Therefore we only
need to override ComponentPeer and LightweightPeer to interface with the
graphics guts.
Later,
Sean
_______________________________________________
UI maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/ui
