Problems with Swing on Kaffe

Peter C.Mehlitz peter at
Thu Jul 16 12:17:44 PDT 1998

>I don't understand why you chose not to use the existing peer framework. It
>seems entirely feasible to implement your Java look and feel by using the
>Toolkit interface defined by Sun,

The answer is: overhead. Compare the size of the class libraries.

> plus you wouldn't break existing
> Aren't those methods on Toolkit you choose not to implement
>required by the PersonalJava standard you claim to conform to?

Since peers are completely "hidden" implementation, it shouldn't break any app.
The Toolkit createXX methods are protected, and I don't see how they would be
used by apps.

>One more thing, I really like the idea of drawing the look and feel of awt
>using Java code, but I'm wondering why you didn't use the swing classes for
>that. When you're running swing applications, it looks silly having two
>look and feels in the same application.

Again, size. Look at the awt/widgets directory, which is just tiny. For me, it
was crucial to have some customizable graphics support without being forced to
deal with Megs of classes (like swing). The kaffe AWT stuff certainly doesn't
try to compete swing or BISS-AWT functionality, but it is a good platform for
portable, customizable look&feel. Besides, we had to implement it, anyway
(because of PersonalJava).

> thanks for releasing itunder GPL!

Thanks4Thanks. GPL feels good :-)


More information about the kaffe mailing list