Re: [platform-swt-dev] SWT-Design Decisions

[Steve Northover <Steve_Northover@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The implementation is up to you.  Tranditionally,
we have written our own binding to the operating system, mostly for performance
and size reasons.

Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-swt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

09/27/2006 04:25 PM

Please respond to
"Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [platform-swt-dev] SWT-Design Decisions

Hi,

Ok e.g. QT is a GUI-Toolkit and if I write an SWT-Port I write a binding
don't I?

Thanks for your answers.

Tom

Steve Northover schrieb:
> 
> What is a "binding for any GUI-Toolkit"?  Sorry for
my ignorance.
> 
> At the time, I thought the SWT constant class was the right thing.
>  Whether it is right or not doesn't matter.  We have shipped.
 The wrong 
> thing would be to redesign it and deprecate the old way.  Since
nothing 
> can ever be deleted (deprecate is a lie), there would be 2 mechanisms
> for doing something for no really good reason.  The old one would
simply 
> take up space and confuse people.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tom Schindl <tom.schindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> Sent by: platform-swt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 09/27/2006 11:42 AM
> Please respond to
> "Eclipse Platform SWT component developers list." 
> <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
>                  
> To
>                  "Eclipse
Platform SWT component developers list." 
> <platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> platform-swt-dev mailing list
> platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> platform-swt-dev mailing list
> platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-swt-dev


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