|SWT/OSX using X11 instead of Aqua ? [message #459330]
||Fri, 05 August 2005 18:26
Originally posted by: yarden.sci.utah.edu|
Is there away to run SWT on the Mac using the X11 presentation layer
rather then Aqua ?
Specifically, my rcp uses JOGL, which in turn requires the use of
SWT_AWT. Yet, SWT_AWT does not run on the Mac due to incompatibility
between the SWT and AWT (long story, but as far as I understand it has
to do with Cocoa/Carbon). Thus my question.... can I have SWT to run on
the Mac using the X11 interface instead... ?
|Re: SWT/OSX using X11 instead of Aqua ? [message #459339 is a reply to message #459336]
||Sat, 06 August 2005 01:01
Originally posted by: yarden.mac.com|
Billy Biggs <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yarden Livnat wrote:
> > Is there away to run SWT on the Mac using the X11 presentation layer
> > rather then Aqua ?
> > Specifically, my rcp uses JOGL, which in turn requires the use of
> > SWT_AWT. Yet, SWT_AWT does not run on the Mac due to incompatibility
> > between the SWT and AWT (long story, but as far as I understand it has
> > to do with Cocoa/Carbon). Thus my question.... can I have SWT to run on
> > the Mac using the X11 interface instead... ?
> I have SWT/GTK+ built on my PowerBook using the GTK+ that's in fink,
I'm glad to hear that. What did you have to do to get SWT/GTK+ on the
> although I'm not sure if it would actually help with the JOGL thing,
> since you'd need it to use GLX instead of AGL, no?
That could be. I haven't looked into that part yet.
> There are some SWT/GL bindings I was looking at finishing. Doing an
> AGL layer there is easy.
I think SWT/GL is OpenGL 1.1 compliant and does not support fragment and
vertex program. Also, last I checked it did not support OSX either.
> The problem with JOGL I think is that all of
> their GL bindings are tied to an AWT widget at some level.
That is correct and it is the fact that SWT and AWT do not work together
on the Mac that is the source of this problem.
> LWJGL's binding is nicer since they just have static methods for each GL call,
> so you can do all of the OpenGL context management with SWT and then
> just use their binding.
LWJGL does not support GLU :-( and I'm not sure which 1.x version of
OpenGL it supports.
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding JOGL though.
JOGL support OpenGL 2.0.... now, this is something I really like.
In short, I'll give up OSX if need be (though at home I work on my
PowerBook and this will be a very big headache) but I'd like to check
all the options... so back to my question above:
what did you do to get SWT/GTK+ on the mac ?
|Re: SWT/OSX using X11 instead of Aqua ? [message #459922 is a reply to message #459858]
||Thu, 18 August 2005 17:33
| Matthew Conway
Registered: July 2009
On 2005-08-18 10:45:55 -0400, Billy Biggs <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:|
> Matthew Conway wrote:
>>>> Is there away to run SWT on the Mac using the X11 presentation layer
>>>> rather then Aqua ?
>>> I have SWT/GTK+ built on my PowerBook using the GTK+ that's in fink, [...]
>> Cool - what would I have to do to get eclipse to run using these bindings?
> It wouldn't be too hard, I don't think, but work and it doesn't
> really interest me :) You'd want to just use my SWT and run the GTK+
> Eclipse. Compiling the eclipse executable should be trivial, just get
> the source and recompile (platform-launcher module in CVS).
Ok, that worked - I'm now running eclipse on macosx using X11/GTK
(fink) instead of carbon - definately faster. Kind of a hack, but
makes eclipse usable until the carbon port performance gets improved.
All I needed to do was fetch the eclipse-linux-3.1 distro, replace the
libs in the swt plugin, then ran eclipse using java rather than the
launcher: java -cp startup.jar org.eclipse.core.launcher.Main -os linux
-ws gtk -arch x86
Had some problems at first, but starting over with a fresh workspace
and readding my extension plugin dirs seemed to fix them. Not sure if
I need to do the core resources lib, but seems to work without it for
now, so I may if workspace refreshes seem too slow.
Only issue I'm having is that dialogs are way too big (which I can live
with), and the cycle parts (ctrl-f6 for editors) are way too small
(which I can't live with :(
Any ideas on how I can fix the second - i.e. hopefully some pref file
somewhere I can tweak so that when I ctrl-f6 I can actually see the
editor names (or even a pointer to the source that controls this and
I'll fix it that way?
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01969 seconds