Home » Eclipse Projects » Standard Widget Toolkit (SWT) » Interesting article
| Interesting article [message #455299] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 10:36  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: martin.j.nilsson.sverige.nu
Hi,
I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74
regards,
martin
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455349 is a reply to message #455299] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 17:47  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Martin J Nilsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
> very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
> valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
> SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
>
> http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74
Those of who have been around Eclipse for awhile are familiar with the
difficulties a long-time Swing user faces when starting to use SWT. It's
painful learning new tricks. People who were very happy with Swing tend
to direct their pain into arguments why Swing is better. That's too bad
because the best way to learn something new is not to fight it every
step of the way.
Bob
|
|
| |
| Re: Interesting article [message #455356 is a reply to message #455299] |
Thu, 12 May 2005 23:49 |
 No real name
Messages: 97
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Interesting article. But it missed the real issue.
The author still seems to live in fatasy islands. I am here in Australia.
I hardly seen any real job advertisement looking for Swing or Java
GUI developers. A few exceptions from companies hassling with
cranky Linux systems. There is no real demand in Windows circles
that can pay salaries for Java GUI developers.
If you are Java GUI programmer and still have a job. You are
extremely lucky person! Note that this indicates the current status
of Java in industries.
The failure of Java came from the crappy ugly GUI packages.
Sun blames for Microsoft for their fault! Not recognizing their inabililty
and arroant attitude.
I've been serious enterprise GUI s/w development for last 8 years.
Most flustrating part is crappy-ness of Sun's GUI packages. It was
simply not possible to develop systems that can match products written
Visual Basic and Visual C++ and likes.
Currently I still use AWT, instead of Swing. With AWT, I was still able
to manage to make systems closer to the quality of Windows systems.
I developed widdgets not supprted in AWT myself. This way, I was
able to improve system quality significantly.
Originally, the system was written in AWT and later migrated to Swing
as it was introduced. This took several months of day and night works.
But it turned out to be useless garbage! I still have Swing version. But
I use the system to demonstrate why Swing is a useless crap! If you are
currious what products we are offering, please visit our web-site;
http://www.roselladb.com/
I strongly support the modtivation behind the SWT project.
As a Java enterprise s/w developer, what I need is not just
ideological pros cons arguments. What we need is a package tool
that we can write s/w that can match the quality of others written in
Visual Basic and Visual C++. I wish that SWT developers take
this seriously, and more importantly save endangered poor Java!
Cheers.
"Martin J Nilsson" <martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu> wrote in message
news:bd5f8bdca61a4a99ff09e66f1ec75206$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
> very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
> valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
> SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
>
> http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74
>
> regards,
> martin
>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455358 is a reply to message #455353] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 02:34 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
:-) I'm kind of on that square myself. The only platform where Swing
apps look halfway decent is MacOS X, because Apple makes it so. I truly
hate trial-and-error-programming, which was my experience all the years
I used GridBagLayout. SWT maybe isn't perfect, but whenever I start
thinking so I find that the problem is, uh, me.
Bob
Phillip Beauvoir wrote:
> I've been programming Swing apps since 1998 when Swing came as a separate
> jar to Java version 1.1.6.....
> ...years of workarounds, kludges and hair pulling later....
> ...the moment I started programming with Eclipse and SWT in earnest this
> year was a rebirth. Put it this way - I vow that I will never program in
> that god-awful Swing ever again.
>
> Native embedded browsers anyone....? Want your app to be hit with the Ugly
> Stick? Why not try Swing...
>
> Swing Sucks.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> "Bob Foster" <bob@objfac.com> wrote in message
> news:d605ca$pou$1@news.eclipse.org...
>
>>Martin J Nilsson wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
>>>very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
>>>valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
>>>SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
>>>
>>>http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74
>>
>>Those of who have been around Eclipse for awhile are familiar with the
>>difficulties a long-time Swing user faces when starting to use SWT. It's
>>painful learning new tricks. People who were very happy with Swing tend to
>>direct their pain into arguments why Swing is better. That's too bad
>>because the best way to learn something new is not to fight it every step
>>of the way.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455364 is a reply to message #455299] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 04:41 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: akan.aiqa.com
Martin J Nilsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
> very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
> valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
> SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
>
> http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74
>
> regards,
> martin
>
SWT is what I have been waiting for since the first day I meet Swing.
Java was slow in the early days and that different GUI (swing) became
the icon of that slowness. People started to think the program with that
GUI probably will work slowly.
SWT with it`s smooth interface blocks this prejudgement in the first
step. Java is still a different language but a swt program is not
different from any other native application (with the exception of a
little bit more memory consumption).
With GCJ and SWT you can even compile to machine code. Excellent.
aiQa
|
|
| |
| Re: Interesting article [message #455372 is a reply to message #455368] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 11:42 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: joerg.von.frantzius.artnology.nospam.com
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Funny flash film, I had a good laugh :)<br>
<br>
Thank god SWT GridLayout is not like that. I first was afraid that it
could blow up my head just as bad old GridBagLayout, but to my
surprise, with SWT GridLayout, I always found out what *my* mistake
was... and got my layout problems solved without tearing too many hears
out.<br>
<br>
<br>
Phillip Beauvoir schrieb:
<blockquote cite="midd61oat$cq2$1@news.eclipse.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ah GridBagLayout.....
have a look at this:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://madbean.com/anim/totallygridbag">http://madbean.com/anim/totallygridbag</a>
Phil
"Bob Foster" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bob@objfac.com"><bob@objfac.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:d6147q$qjq$1@news.eclipse.org">news:d6147q$qjq$1@news.eclipse.org</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">:-) I'm kind of on that square myself. The only platform where Swing apps
look halfway decent is MacOS X, because Apple makes it so. I truly hate
trial-and-error-programming, which was my experience all the years I used
GridBagLayout. SWT maybe isn't perfect, but whenever I start thinking so I
find that the problem is, uh, me.
Bob
Phillip Beauvoir wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I've been programming Swing apps since 1998 when Swing came as a separate
jar to Java version 1.1.6.....
....years of workarounds, kludges and hair pulling later....
....the moment I started programming with Eclipse and SWT in earnest this
year was a rebirth. Put it this way - I vow that I will never program in
that god-awful Swing ever again.
Native embedded browsers anyone....? Want your app to be hit with the
Ugly Stick? Why not try Swing...
Swing Sucks.
Phil
"Bob Foster" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bob@objfac.com"><bob@objfac.com></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:d605ca$pou$1@news.eclipse.org">news:d605ca$pou$1@news.eclipse.org</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Martin J Nilsson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
I thought this article was very interesting although it does not shine a
very positive light on SWT. It raises some quiestions/issues which are
valuable, I think. If nothing else it shows the difficulties a long-time
SWING user faces when starting to use SWT instead.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74">http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=74</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Those of who have been around Eclipse for awhile are familiar with the
difficulties a long-time Swing user faces when starting to use SWT. It's
painful learning new tricks. People who were very happy with Swing tend
to direct their pain into arguments why Swing is better. That's too bad
because the best way to learn something new is not to fight it every step
of the way.
Bob
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455374 is a reply to message #455358] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 13:06 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: martin.j.nilsson.sverige.nu
The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible, these
kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The article
is very well written and makes a number of real-world points that are
worth thinking about.
I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING, it
would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you agree?
And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate uses
for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using either of
them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that you dislike
SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I would use SWING if
my customer preferred that.
Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate the
pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
regards,
martin
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Interesting article [message #455412 is a reply to message #455299] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 16:19 |
Cyrill Rüttimann
Messages: 9
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
On 2005-05-12 12:36:00 +0200, martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu (Martin J
Nilsson) said:
Hi,
If SWING is better than SWT or not - SWT is not portable!!! And as long
SWT is not portable to the platform SWT supports (should support), SWT
is not really an option to do write once ...
1. SWT_AWT bridge on MacOS X bug. It is not possible to call AWT
widgets from within an SWT application on MacOS X
2. SWT lacks printer support on Linux, because GTK has no printer interface
3. ... probably there are others. But those two bugs have bitten me in
my last project - and those bugs are killers!!!
Another bad thing is myeclipseide version 4.0 which is only available
on Windows, because of these bugs and some others - since AWT should be
no problem on Linux , but this is not true. In my last project, the VM
version 1.4.2 on Linux crashed when calling the printer manager (AWT)
from within jasper reports from within my RCP-App. With version 1.5, it
worked. But the sheet of paper in the printer was brilliant white.
Nothing printed. Only save as file saved the correct PS-File.
Regards,
Cyrill
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455413 is a reply to message #455411] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 16:44 |
Jim Adams
Messages: 160
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I had to agree with the premise of the article. My reasonings are that
SWT is inherently non-portable and that it is not as complete. My
solutions, however, are to include Swing inside SWT where appropriate.
One thing that would be useful, however, would be a better way to
integrate Swing components into SWT. Certainly there is the SWT_AWT
bridge but that gives us AWT integration and not Swing integration.
There is a whole other level of complexity that comes when you try to
integrate Swing components in. You have to understand that you should
assume that you have a Frame and not a JFrame. I also found it amusing
that the SWT_AWT bridge does not turn on the System look and feel by
default. Since that is one of the precepts for the existance of SWT
(native look and feel) I can only think that there was a desire to make
Swing components look different be default.
Something that would go a long way to making this a better story would
be an interface that inserts a RootPaneContainer into the composite
instead of just an EmbeddedFrame. Something else that would be useful
would be to provide a better way to get at some of the functionality of
the EmbeddedFrame. One problem that comes up a lot is that widgets
flicker a lot in the embedded environment. I can only imagine that this
is because the default repaint method of the EmbeddedFrame is to erase.
This isn't neccessary since the enclosing containers will handle that
already. However the only way to fix this is by providing your own
subclass of the EmbeddedFrame which automaticly makes your solution
platform dependant which is something that no self respecting developer
wants to do if at all possible. My original solution was to provide a
delegate class that could handle this through SWT provided callbacks.
This was rejected.
Chris wrote:
> I hear what you're saying. I agree that in general it is best to respond to
> well intentioned and well described criticism. I think this article is a
> little less than well intentioned though. When you read the following line:
>
> "I have read claims of Swing's poor performance for years, but always found
> them mystifying. I have never had a problem with the responsiveness of a
> Swing application, nor heard a user complain of it."
>
> You have to take the whole article with a grain of salt.
>
> -Chris
>
> "Martin J Nilsson" <martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu> wrote in message
> news:1254ec1e8c2f9c64b57bebd53a88f422$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
>>was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible, these
>>kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The article
>>is very well written and makes a number of real-world points that are
>>worth thinking about.
>>
>>I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING, it
>>would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you
>>agree?
>>
>>And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate uses
>>for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using either of
>>them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that you dislike
>>SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I would use SWING if
>>my customer preferred that.
>>
>>Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate the
>>pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
>>
>>
>>regards,
>> martin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455414 is a reply to message #455374] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 16:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: bob.objfac.com
Well-written? Well, the grammar was ok. But, well-reasoned; no. It says
there are bugs in SWT. Shocking news. But what bugs? How many of these
bugs are just newcomer confusion? It says that SWT was motivated by
programmer intuition and several other things the author has absolutely
no way of knowing. He's making up straw men to argue against.
I said before, the article is what happens when instead of learning a
new framework you fight it every step of the way. There is nothing for
the "SWT community" to "address" except, as always, try to help people
who ask about real issues in real code.
Bob
Martin J Nilsson wrote:
> The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
> was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible,
> these kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The
> article is very well written and makes a number of real-world points
> that are worth thinking about.
>
> I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING,
> it would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you
> agree?
>
> And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate
> uses for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using
> either of them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that
> you dislike SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I
> would use SWING if my customer preferred that.
>
> Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate
> the pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
>
>
> regards,
> martin
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455415 is a reply to message #455413] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 18:17 |
Chris Gross
Messages: 471
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Sure there are ways SWT could be made better. I don't disagree. Swing
could be better too. Pick the tool that supports your goals. If you want a
toolkit that looks and performs the same across platforms, use Swing. If
you want a toolkit that looks and works like the platform you're on, use
SWT. If you need 100% customizable widgets, use Swing. If you want your
app to look indistinguishable from other native apps, use SWT. There are
trade-offs, as there are with everything. At my company, we write
commercial software and the look and feel of an app can determine whether or
not its sold. Thus we use SWT. Our client's desktop are 99.9% windows.
There have only been two times, during my entire 10 year career at this
company, that any customer even inquired about running our desktop client on
something other than Windows. Those two companies were Sun and Apple!
As for the default look and feel, I'd bet the SWT developers didn't set the
default l&f because they didn't want to make any assumptions for you. Thats
all.
-Chris
"Jim Adams" <jim.adams@sas.com> wrote in message
news:d62m2o$hoo$1@news.eclipse.org...
>I had to agree with the premise of the article. My reasonings are that SWT
>is inherently non-portable and that it is not as complete. My solutions,
>however, are to include Swing inside SWT where appropriate. One thing that
>would be useful, however, would be a better way to integrate Swing
>components into SWT. Certainly there is the SWT_AWT bridge but that gives
>us AWT integration and not Swing integration. There is a whole other level
>of complexity that comes when you try to integrate Swing components in. You
>have to understand that you should assume that you have a Frame and not a
>JFrame. I also found it amusing that the SWT_AWT bridge does not turn on
>the System look and feel by default. Since that is one of the precepts for
>the existance of SWT (native look and feel) I can only think that there was
>a desire to make Swing components look different be default.
>
> Something that would go a long way to making this a better story would be
> an interface that inserts a RootPaneContainer into the composite instead
> of just an EmbeddedFrame. Something else that would be useful would be to
> provide a better way to get at some of the functionality of the
> EmbeddedFrame. One problem that comes up a lot is that widgets flicker a
> lot in the embedded environment. I can only imagine that this is because
> the default repaint method of the EmbeddedFrame is to erase. This isn't
> neccessary since the enclosing containers will handle that already.
> However the only way to fix this is by providing your own subclass of the
> EmbeddedFrame which automaticly makes your solution platform dependant
> which is something that no self respecting developer wants to do if at all
> possible. My original solution was to provide a delegate class that could
> handle this through SWT provided callbacks. This was rejected.
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I hear what you're saying. I agree that in general it is best to respond
>> to well intentioned and well described criticism. I think this article
>> is a little less than well intentioned though. When you read the
>> following line:
>>
>> "I have read claims of Swing's poor performance for years, but always
>> found them mystifying. I have never had a problem with the responsiveness
>> of a Swing application, nor heard a user complain of it."
>>
>> You have to take the whole article with a grain of salt.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> "Martin J Nilsson" <martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu> wrote in message
>> news:1254ec1e8c2f9c64b57bebd53a88f422$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
>>>was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible, these
>>>kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The
>>>article is very well written and makes a number of real-world points that
>>>are worth thinking about.
>>>
>>>I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING,
>>>it would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you
>>>agree?
>>>
>>>And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate uses
>>>for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using either of
>>>them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that you
>>>dislike SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I would use
>>>SWING if my customer preferred that.
>>>
>>>Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate the
>>>pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
>>>
>>>
>>>regards,
>>> martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: Interesting article [message #455423 is a reply to message #455376] |
Fri, 13 May 2005 22:58 |
No real name
Messages: 97
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
"Phillip Beauvoir" <p.beauvoir@bolton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d629p4$1cv$1@news.eclipse.org...
> "Swing sucks" may sound silly but it's my opinion after 7 years of using
it
> almost every day.
>
> Yes, I too have developed well-written apps with Swing (1000 downloads a
> month ain't bad) but I repeat - Swing sucks. OK?
I totally agree with you. That's why we distribute AWT version with
custom-built
widgets. Swing version s/w we have turn off most casual Windows users.
People in support of Swing are gerenally write programs for themselves,
I mean for s/w developers use, not for casual users, especially with
Windows
os.
We hate crappy GUI packages that turn off average casual users!
Cheers.
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> "Martin J Nilsson" <martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu> wrote in message
> news:1254ec1e8c2f9c64b57bebd53a88f422$1@www.eclipse.org...
> > The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
> > was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible,
these
> > kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The
article
> > is very well written and makes a number of real-world points that are
> > worth thinking about.
> >
> > I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING,
it
> > would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you
> > agree?
> >
> > And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate
uses
> > for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using either
of
> > them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that you
dislike
> > SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I would use SWING
if
> > my customer preferred that.
> >
> > Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate
the
> > pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
> >
> >
> > regards,
> > martin
> >
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| Re: Interesting article [message #456180 is a reply to message #455413] |
Thu, 26 May 2005 02:15 |
No real name
Messages: 97
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
I have to say that adding Swing to SWT will make SWT as another crap.
The main motivation behind SWT was the sloppy craps of Swing implementation,
and this what makes me interested with SWT. I am not interested in how
can programs be written. What matters is to provide widgets that enable
developers come up with systems that can match other systems
developed in VB/VC++.
I will challenge anyone that can come up with systems that can even
match our packages written in AWT with custom-built widgets.
Our Swing version system turns off every Windows casual user.
No more Swing craps with SWT, please!
Regards.
"Jim Adams" <jim.adams@sas.com> wrote in message
news:d62m2o$hoo$1@news.eclipse.org...
>I had to agree with the premise of the article. My reasonings are that SWT
>is inherently non-portable and that it is not as complete. My solutions,
>however, are to include Swing inside SWT where appropriate. One thing that
>would be useful, however, would be a better way to integrate Swing
>components into SWT. Certainly there is the SWT_AWT bridge but that gives
>us AWT integration and not Swing integration. There is a whole other level
>of complexity that comes when you try to integrate Swing components in. You
>have to understand that you should assume that you have a Frame and not a
>JFrame. I also found it amusing that the SWT_AWT bridge does not turn on
>the System look and feel by default. Since that is one of the precepts for
>the existance of SWT (native look and feel) I can only think that there was
>a desire to make Swing components look different be default.
>
> Something that would go a long way to making this a better story would be
> an interface that inserts a RootPaneContainer into the composite instead
> of just an EmbeddedFrame. Something else that would be useful would be to
> provide a better way to get at some of the functionality of the
> EmbeddedFrame. One problem that comes up a lot is that widgets flicker a
> lot in the embedded environment. I can only imagine that this is because
> the default repaint method of the EmbeddedFrame is to erase. This isn't
> neccessary since the enclosing containers will handle that already.
> However the only way to fix this is by providing your own subclass of the
> EmbeddedFrame which automaticly makes your solution platform dependant
> which is something that no self respecting developer wants to do if at all
> possible. My original solution was to provide a delegate class that could
> handle this through SWT provided callbacks. This was rejected.
>
> Chris wrote:
>> I hear what you're saying. I agree that in general it is best to respond
>> to well intentioned and well described criticism. I think this article
>> is a little less than well intentioned though. When you read the
>> following line:
>>
>> "I have read claims of Swing's poor performance for years, but always
>> found them mystifying. I have never had a problem with the responsiveness
>> of a Swing application, nor heard a user complain of it."
>>
>> You have to take the whole article with a grain of salt.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>> "Martin J Nilsson" <martin.j.nilsson@sverige.nu> wrote in message
>> news:1254ec1e8c2f9c64b57bebd53a88f422$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>The point I was trying to make (but obviously didn't express very well)
>>>was that if we want the adoption of SWT to be as large as possible, these
>>>kinds of frustrations should be addressed and taken seriously. The
>>>article is very well written and makes a number of real-world points that
>>>are worth thinking about.
>>>
>>>I didn't want a religious discussion on the merits of SWT versus SWING,
>>>it would be rather pointless in a newsgroup dedicated to SWT, don't you
>>>agree?
>>>
>>>And honestly "Swing sucks" is just plain silly. There are legitimate uses
>>>for both SWT and SWING and very well-written applications using either of
>>>them. I can't really understand why liking SWT must imply that you
>>>dislike SWING. I prefer SWT, but since I work as a consultant I would use
>>>SWING if my customer preferred that.
>>>
>>>Now; are there any plans within the SWT community on how to alleviate the
>>>pains a former SWING developer faces when starting to use SWT?
>>>
>>>
>>>regards,
>>> martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 04:01:27 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05590 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
