Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [platform-swt-dev] Please reopen bug #56448 (was: RE: Eclipse M9 and CTabFolder setB ackground (Steve Northover))


The key work here is "binary compatible".  I wish I could help you out but I can't.  The controls in org.eclipse.swt.custom are "custom for Eclipse" and always have been.  Sorry.



Dave Orme <DaveO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-swt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

05/26/2004 03:43 PM

Please respond to
platform-swt-dev

To
"'platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
[platform-swt-dev] Please reopen bug #56448 (was: RE: Eclipse M9 and CTabFolder setB ackground (Steve Northover))






> If you code against an official release such as 2.1.x or 3.0,
> you will be
> binary compatible with future releases.  Coding against work
> in progress
> means that API's can change right up till the release (but
> NEVER after).

Steve,

I'd like to bring your attention to bug #56448.  Several of us have been
depending on the Eclipse 1.x and 2.x look and feel for ViewForm based partly
on assurances like those that you just made above about not having breaking
API changes after an official release.

Yet, ViewForm *has* been changed--in a way the breaks the look of several of
our custom SWT applications--in the 3.0 stream.

This email is a plea to please reopen bug #56448 and implement the Eclipse
3.0 look for ViewForm *without* breaking the rest of our code that depends
on the old behavior.

I'd suggest adding a style bit to ViewForm in the 3.0 stream that turns
Eclipse 3.0-style drawing on.  That way clients (ie: Eclipse 3.0) that rely
on the new drawing can enable it, and clients (ie: myself, RSSOwl, and
possibly others) that depend on the old look aren't broken by the new
implementation.


Thanks in advance,

Dave Orme
_______________________________________________
platform-swt-dev mailing list
platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev


Back to the top