HI all,
I have a simple patch that allows the building of the Nimbus L'n'F
(which has a dependency on a specific version of JIBX, 1.1.5) to be
turned off so the user can trade build simplicity for a lack of Nimbus
support and curved buttons in Swing.
The bug report is here: https://bugs.openjdk.j
There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
-phil.
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
HI all,
I have a simple patch that allows the building of the
Is that a 'seems ok'?
---
The makefiles changes seem fine to me.
-kto
Phil Race wrote:
There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
-phil.
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
> There's public API associated with Nimbus in javax.swing.plaf.nimbus
> so I don't think many people will want to use that facility and it doesn't
> seem appropriate to have it in the jdk7 source train.
>
> -phil.
>
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> HI all,
>>
>> I have a s
I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a slippery slope as
you have no way of knowing or keeping track of the consequences of
not building a particular component.
I suggest its better to fix the local build problem than push workarounds
upstream.
-phil.
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
> I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a slippery slope as
> you have no way of knowing or keeping track of the consequences of
> not building a particular component.
Sure, but if someone chooses to set DISABLE_NIMBUS then they take that
risk. It's much the sa
If the OpenJDK was able to build with jibx 1.1.6 or 1.2.1,
or in general was able to build with more of the jibx versions
(I don't know how hard that would be) does that change things?
-kto
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a sl
2009/5/14 Kelly O'Hair :
> If the OpenJDK was able to build with jibx 1.1.6 or 1.2.1,
> or in general was able to build with more of the jibx versions
> (I don't know how hard that would be) does that change things?
>
> -kto
>
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> 2009/5/14 Phil Race :
>>>
>>> I do thi
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2009/5/14 Phil Race :
I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a slippery slope as
you have no way of knowing or keeping track of the consequences of
not building a particular component.
Sure, but if someone chooses to set DISABLE_NIMBUS then they take th
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:31:58 +0100
> From: Andrew John Hughes
> 2009/5/14 phil.r...@sun.com:
>> I do think I know what you want. But I consider its a slippery slope as
>> you have no way of knowing or keeping track of the consequences of
>> not building a particular component.
>
> Sure, but
10 matches
Mail list logo
