Pretty interesting discussion. Basically you are talking about the dilemma
everyone has to face if he wants to develop a framework that is meant to be
used by others. If he makes it too generic then there will be a bunch of
people who complain that it is hard to use, that the turnaround times are
too long etc. If he makes it too specific then there will be lots of people
who complain that it doesn't fit their needs, that they cannot adjust it
etc. So what to do?
In my opinion Sun did and still does a very good job with the whole Java
API, not only the Swing toolkit. They provide all the necessary features
usually missing in other toolkits but still leave it flexible enough to make
your own changes. And they also leave enough room for third party suppliers
who then can provide more specific add-ons to the API that may be easier to
use. I agree, the Java API is not easy to use. It implements all the aspects
of object-oriented analysis and design. It utilizes object patterns like
factories, iterators, singletons etc. Understanding all these concepts
really helps you to get most out of the JAVA API.
Sun's developers are really knowledgeable people. They turned theoretic and
abstract concepts discussed by system analysis and software experts for
years now into a highly usable real world product. If have been searching
for something like this for years. Finally I have found it. And the best
thing: it's for free.
Rudy
-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Pepers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, July 10, 1999 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Has Sun Overstretch Themselves With So Many APIs?
>Rachit Siamwalla wrote:
>>
>> > Agreed, Swing JFC is one of the best API design ever. Java 2D/ DnD is
excellent
>> > and JMF appears to be well though out. I await Java Sound with baited
breath.
>> >
>>
>> I don't 100% agree with the comment about JFC. Some things in JFC are
>> well written like the JTree and the JTable and the Text components. But
>> the rest seem slapped together and hard to customize without creating
>> your own components. Another thing is it is scary how slow they seem to
>> fix problems. I heard from someone who went to JavaOne last year that
>> they have 10 people devoted to Swing. How long has JFC came out? A lot
>> of repeatable problems have not been fixed. This is amazingly bad. What
>> have they been doing? The interface hasn't changed significantly. All
>> there is to do is fix thier bugs. Oh well...
>
>I can't even go that far since JTable has its own problems. Like you
>mentioned its hard to customize without creating your own component and
>its also almost useless for data entry. In general the whole thing is
>missing so much basical functionality that you end up spending all your
>time subclassing their components. Little things like the simplest of
>data validation (limiting the number of characters entered for instance)
>require you to write code when it should be basic functionality of the
>component.
>
>I think they've had to spend *way* too much time on getting the whole
>switchable look and feel working and in doing so have left out basic
>functionality. Its also so complicated its hard to subclass and get
>control of the behaviour when you need to (and I also suspect this is
>the source of the bugs and why they can't fix them). They should have
>just worked on a light weight set of components with a rich set of
>functionality and a nice look and feel. AWT is bad because it relies
>on the underlying graphics lib which creates subtle differences in
>functionality between operating systems but JFC seems to be just as bad
>by trying to cater to everyone they have made a system not very good
>for anyone.
>
>If its not obvious, I've been working with Swing for a while now and had
>nothing but frustration. 8^)
>
>Rant mode off.
>
>Are there other options out there?
>
>--
>Brad Pepers
>Linux Canada Inc. Home of Linux products in Canada!
>http://www.linuxcanada.com Proud supporter of Cyclades, Red
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hat, and Caldera.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
