Re: [platform-swt-dev] Mac OS X Port

["Mike Wilson" <Mike_Wilson@xxxxxxx>]

Don't worry about it. :-) Until we can get all this written down in a porting guide, the best way to find out this information is by just asking. 

McQ.

Martin Sturzenhecker <msturzen@xxxxxxx> Sent by: platform-swt-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx 07/16/2002 12:46 PM Please respond to platform-swt-dev

To:        platform-swt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx         cc:                 Subject:        Re: [platform-swt-dev] Mac OS X Port

Am Dienstag den, 16. Juli 2002, um 17:08, schrieb Steve Northover:

> The "cluttered OS class" is cluttered by design on every platform.  
> Until a
> cross platform uncluttering strategy is devised, it probably makes 
> sense to
> follow the "cluttered OS class" pattern.
>
> Steve
>

Well, seems like this one is on me.


Am Dienstag den, 16. Juli 2002, um 12:05, schrieb Mike Wilson:

> Note to all: One of the most significant design decisions in SWT is 
> that, *implementing* SWT should be as much like programming the 
> platform API as possible. It is deliberately *not* like programming on 
> some Java abstraction, because this reduces the implementors's ability 
> to apply domain knowledge. This is particularly important when more 
> than one developer may end up owning the codebase. Typically in C, 
> constants are introduced in a header files but are then mentioned 
> without qualifiers. The closest we could get to that is "OS.foo" for 
> constant "foo", so that is how it should be coded.

> McQ.

I didn´t mean any harm nor did I want to question any desgin decisions, 
just thought my suggestion could help cleaning up the really large 
amount of public static final int fields and provide some order to 
clarify which field should be used in which context. Maybe the 
impemented design is the way a 'native' programmer is used to program, 
but I´m used to use Java, so why not tidy the OS class?

martin