I really hate to respond to this with a cross post to all these lists
but I feel I have to because of all the crap that sun has been putting
Java developers through lately. Both sides of this argument have made
good points on the feedback page for this poll. The point I feel has
been lost in the debate is that sun has made a number of promises
about swing that have later been broken. First they promised a
MVC GUI system that would run on unix, max and windows. They have
delivered a decent set of components but they have deliberately placed
locks on the look and feel classes so that a windows style look can
only be run on a 95 or NT, and a Mac look can only be run on a Mac.
The real problem here is that Sun does not think that the Java developer
community is as important as their "partners" (those who license Java).
There is only one really plausible reason Sun has decided to make this
change without warning the Java developer community. One of the Java
"partners" must have called Sun and told them that they did not feel
like updating their code when moving from jdk1.1 to jdk1.2. This is
why folks are so pissed off. I have to admit I am getting a little
worried about Sun defining ISO Java specifications that include
sucks hacks and com.sun.java.swing. What we really need is a more
open "open process" from Sun.
Mo DeJong
dejong at cs.umn.edu
On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, Robert Fitzsimons wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm just pointing out to everybody that JavaWorld (www.javaworld.com) are
> doing a poll, on whether it is right for Sun to put Swing under the package
> name com.sun.java.swing.
>
> This is very important for us in the open source community to try and
> change Sun's minds. As we may in the future want to write a open source
> version of Swing, and I don't think it is right for us to put our code
> under com.sun.java.swing.
>
> The poll page is http://nigeria.wpi.com/cgi-bin/gwpoll/gwpoll/ballot.html
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Fitzsimons
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
