On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:59:59 +0100, Tom Schindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael Hoennig wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > > >>would it be easier to use SWT? > > > > > > Why do you think so? > > > > My opionon on that issue is, if somebody implements it for SWT, go on! > > But I doubt, somebody at Sun will do. And be honest, the vast amount of > > code on OOo is still written by Sun employees. > > > > Michael > > > > > > Because you mentionned the L&F and because SWT uses native widgets at > least the L&F on Linux and Win32 should be equal both OO and SWT use > GTK/Win32-Widgets. Am I wrong here? > You could even make .so/.dll from SWT-jars (using gcj) and use it > without java. > > I agree that this will not happen by Sun ;-). Just for curiosity how > would one integrate Swing?
Ok, I admit I'm still on a beginner-to-intermediate stage on Swing and Java at the moment, and don't claim to have an intimate knowledge of the internals (actually I've barely skimmed the surface of Swing), but I thought we were talking about just an API, not the actual toolkit, whether it is Swing or SWT. My desire is to see UNO offer Swing compatible API (especially the layout support among other things), similar to how it offers AWT compatible API *today*, but the actual rendering is still done by VCL for platform dependent L&F. As far as the Swing vs SWT debate goes, I personally like the idea of sticking with the Swing API, but use something like SwingWT (http://swingwt.sf.net) for native L&F which uses SWT under the hood. Haven't tested it extensively, but looks promising. Kohei --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
