| Re: [platform-swt-dev] SWT-Design Decisions |
Steve Northover schrieb: > > Hi Tom, > > These questions have been asked before. > > 1) Interfaces have various advantages and drawbacks. Defining them for > the purposes of Javadoc is not in keeping with the small side of the > toolkit. What's an "SWT-Binding writer"? Say I sit down and write a binding for any GUI-Toolkit. > 2) There could be abstact classes but that would introduce a layer, > increase the size of the toolkit and make things slower, and possibly > harder to debug and maintain. Accepted. > 3) The idea was to minimize the number of constants in the toolkit. > Read the Javadoc for class SWT. > Well I know. What I asked for is if you think it was the right choice? I often find myself using SWT-Constants although this isn't appropriate e.g JFaceDialog.open() == SWT.OK (it works but it's not appropriate). If every class would have provide it's own constants I would ever had the idea to do so. Tom -- B e s t S o l u t i o n . a t EDV Systemhaus GmbH ------------------------------------------------------------------------ tom schindl leiter softwareentwicklung/CSE mobile ++43 676 3232147 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eduard-bodem-gasse 8/3 A-6020 innsbruck fax ++43 512 935833 http://www.bestsolution.at phone ++43 512 935834
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature