I yanked them out, as described in that thread. The problem was never the layers themselves. They are clearly a good thing. The problem was addressing the backwards compatibility while creating a flexible and yet non-surprising API with clear semantics. After months of discussion (much of which took place on that mailing list), we decided to refactor it. It wasn't an easy decision, as I described in the thread, but we felt is was necessary. There is nothing preventing you from having your own Layered painter, btw. The Painter interface is still there and can be used quite nicely as it is. We just decided not to extend it carte-blanch to all JX components because it didn't have clear semantics.
Two years later I still think it was the right choice. We now have better ways of doing the things we were trying to accomplish; with projects like the Nimbus L&F, JavaFX, and the JXLayeredPane. - Josh On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:59 PM, mikaelgrev wrote: > > Josh, these two projects are basically ONLY made out of layered > painters, so I know what I am talking about when I say that painters > are super great, but they need to be reasonably powerful to be of any > value. It would be fun to know who yanked out the guts of them and > what "real" experience they have programming with painters (we are not > talking demos here...). > > http://www.migcalendar.com > http://miginfocom.com/blog/ > > Cheers, > Mikael Grev > > On Nov 24, 9:39 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As I have stated several times before: I did not and will not remove >> the painter api. >> >> Please read the entire email thread. What I *did* do is refactor the >> painter api to be simpler and recommend takeing other approaches for >> particular use cases. We had the choice between continuing to search >> for a complete solution that would take a long time and still might >> not exist, or ship something more limited that works today. We opted >> for the latter. >> >> I still would like a more powerful system but the JXLayer project has >> proven to be a better approach to the the problem. >> >> - Josh, on the go >> >> On Nov 24, 2008, at 8:26 AM, robeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Guys - >> >>> I love the show. One comment though, on the SwingX and Painter >>> stuff, >>> it's pretty clear that you're not familiar with the issues. You >>> might >>> want to research them or get someone one who does understand before >>> you talk about them in depth. >> >>> Dick, the issue with the painters is that they *did* happen. The >>> community did go out and get them done and put into the SwingX >>> project. The decision was then made by Sun (who controls SwingX) to >>> yank them out. This was done after quite a while (at least a year, I >>> believe) and quite a lot of community input and excitement about the >>> feature. Here's Josh's announcement of the removal: >>> http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=21745. To quote >>> Krill >>> Grouchnikov: "This has effectively destroyed the trust of external >>> contributors, who never came back, even after Sun developers have >>> retired themselves from being involved in the project." (Reference: >>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/kirillcool/archive/2008/11/sun_setting_d >>> ... >>> ) >> >>> Now, of course there are always reasons. But, I think the community >>> frustration was the lack of discussion. It was done in a very heavy- >>> handed way. >> >>> Rob > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
