recent thread on japhar [Various] GTK implementation of the AWT 8(

[Roland Pleasant Dunkerley III <javaman millennial org>]

This is somewhat related to what we are doing, (a couple of you
expressed interest on linuxnet), so I've digestified the thread
and left the most interesting messages.  Basically, it looke like
the japhar people are planning on using GTK in their Java AWT
implementation unless they talk themselves out of it.

-- 
Roland Pleasant Dunkerley III             <javaman@millennial.org>
"On top of the world, looking over the edge..."
Want to join a *real* space program?     http://www.millennial.org
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Fri May  8 22:10:22 1998
From: Various
Subject: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(

Topics:
   GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
   Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:00:37 +0000
From: Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net>
To: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(

I've had a look at GTK, and I'm afraid it is too high level for an implementation or the AWT.

GTK appears to have its on built in Window Management. From what I've seen in the tutorial, you can use box or table to layout
widgets.

For Java, we need to be able to manipulate the Components directly (dictate its size, shape and placement within Containers),
without an intervening Window Manager getting involved. Window Management in AWT should occur within the AWT.

Maybe the tutorial for GTK doesn't cover it, but I need a way to directly manipulate the Widgets in order to implement the peer
classes. Is this possible in GTK? If not, any suggestions for a toolkit where we can manipulate the widgets directly?

Doug

--
My wasted space --- http://www.squirrel.net/~dsouth
------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:05:22 -0700
From: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM>
To: Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net>
CC: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(

Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net> writes:
> 
> Maybe the tutorial for GTK doesn't cover it, but I need a way to directly manipulate the Widgets in order to implement the peer
> classes. Is this possible in GTK? If not, any suggestions for a toolkit where we can manipulate the widgets directly?

gtk has the same facilities for doing this as motif does.  there's a
widget in gtk called GtkFixed (I think that's the name...) that allows
absolute positioning of it's children widgets.

there is nothing inherent in gtk that makes it ill-suited for a set of
awt peers.

christoph


------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 01:31:29 +0000
From: Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net>
To: owen@smtp.zj.cninfo.net
CC: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
Message-ID: <353FEB71.1DAE725C@squirrel.net>
References: <353FAB30.B43139CF@squirrel.net> <353FE434.53C47646@squirrel.net> <m2vhs0qbal.fsf@terror.hungry.com> <353FE7EE.2479CC2B@smtp.zj.cninfo.net>

owen wrote:

[snip foot in mouth and xtoph's reply]

> Why GTK, not lesstif or something else? Does GTK the best one?

I'm using GTK because that was what was suggested in HACKING. 8)

> In my opinion, the Built in AWT should be integrated in japhar's
> code, not require user to install another copy.

It won't. All JVM's work this way. The JVM for Solaris has its own
implementation of peer classes, W95 has it's own, mac it's own, etc.
Nothing new, just the way the JVM works.

> Excuse me, if I had said something total stupid.

Not a stupid question. Only an insane person would WANT to understand
how the AWT works. I didn't know any better and sacrificed my life to
its understanding back in '96. So it only makes sense I try to salvage
something of my life via japhar. ;)

Doug

-- 
My wasted space --- http://www.squirrel.net/~dsouth


------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1998 19:52:49 -0700
From: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM>
To: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
Message-ID: <m2pvi8q6bi.fsf@terror.hungry.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.3.96.980423194147.29899A-100000@bud.indirect.com>

Dan McGuirk <mcguirk@indirect.com> writes:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Doug South wrote:
> > > In my opinion, the Built in AWT should be integrated in japhar's
> > > code, not require user to install another copy.
> > 
> > It won't. All JVM's work this way. The JVM for Solaris has its own
> > implementation of peer classes, W95 has it's own, mac it's own, etc.
> > Nothing new, just the way the JVM works.
> 
> The peers don't have to be JVM specific, though, right?  If you implement
> them using JNI, you should be able to create a set of classes plus a
> shared library that could be used by any JNI-supporting VM.

right.  also, we should be able to just plug in sun's jdk1.2 awt peers
for motif (at least in the short term), since they're supposed to be
JNI friendly.

christoph


------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1998 21:45:50 -0700
From: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM>
To: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
Message-ID: <m2lnsvrfnl.fsf@terror.hungry.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.3.96.980423194147.29899A-100000@bud.indirect.com>
	<m2pvi8q6bi.fsf@terror.hungry.com> <3540164E.5E143F92@squirrel.net>

Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net> writes:
> Christoph Toshok wrote:
> > 
> > Dan McGuirk <mcguirk@indirect.com> writes:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > The peers don't have to be JVM specific, though, right?  If you implement
> > > them using JNI, you should be able to create a set of classes plus a
> > > shared library that could be used by any JNI-supporting VM.
> > 
> > right.  also, we should be able to just plug in sun's jdk1.2 awt peers
> > for motif (at least in the short term), since they're supposed to be
> > JNI friendly.
> 
> Peers an implemented as native classes. All the peers are abstract
> classes. The key to the whole thing is java.awt.Toolkit. Toolkit isn't
> actually instantiated, as it's an abstract class, but you could
> instantiate a native toolkit in Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit(). Then if you
> want to "plug-in" another native toolkit, you just need to instaniate
> the native toolkit (and make suer its peer implemenations are in
> classes.jar/zip) and your using a different native implementation.
> 
> Now, I'm wondering if I'm on the same wavelength as Dan and Chris or am
> I missing something. (I'd hate to start plowing through this only to
> come out the other end and here "no, no, no" 8) ).
>
> Now how you'd use japhar's peers in another jvm, that's beyond me at the
> moment. Besides that, they should be usable by other jvm's. 8)

Sorry for the confusion -- I meant that we should be able to make use
of the 1.2 native libraries distributed with the JDK (libawt.so) since
they will use the JNI to do vm type things.

So long as the GTK peers native library uses the JNI, it will also be
portable across VM's that support the JNI.

Chris


------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 1998 22:04:50 -0700
From: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM>
To: japhar@Hungry.COM
Subject: Re: GTK implementation of the AWT 8(
Message-ID: <m2emynrerx.fsf@terror.hungry.com>
References: <Pine.BSI.3.96.980423194147.29899A-100000@bud.indirect.com>
	<m2pvi8q6bi.fsf@terror.hungry.com> <3540164E.5E143F92@squirrel.net>
	<m2lnsvrfnl.fsf@terror.hungry.com> <35401B2D.BC9BCF27@squirrel.net>

Doug South <dsouth@squirrel.net> writes:
> Christoph Toshok wrote:
>  
> > Sorry for the confusion -- I meant that we should be able to make use
> > of the 1.2 native libraries distributed with the JDK (libawt.so) since
> > they will use the JNI to do vm type things.
> 
> Is japhar meant to be 1.1 or 1.2 compatible?

1.1, but I doubt it would be too hard to support the 1.2 JNI vtables.
It wouldn't require anything to be different with the classes.zip file
or anything.

> Also, there doesn't seem to be much in the way documentation for the low
> level stuff of GTK. I can see it there in the source, but I'd rather
> have something a bit more higher up then source code to learn from.
> Anyone out there was a good knowledge (or better than mine) of GTK? I
> just need to pick someone's brain to get this thing out of the dock.

hmm, not I...  sorry.

christoph


------------------------------

End of forwarda19277 Digest
***************************
------- End of forwarded message -------