There is this new port of SWT existing in the tioport project. Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?

Could you please explain what you mean by "Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?" ? Sorry for my poor English.

Frank Benoit Wrote:

> There is this new port of SWT existing in the tioport project. Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?

Frank Benoit Wrote:

> There is this new port of SWT existing in the tioport project. Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?

Of course.
Probabely the Tango collection sources can be ported to phobos, so that a SWT user can use his prefered standard library  ?
have a look at the TIOPORT Forum / Bobef s message.
Bjoern

Frank Benoit wrote:
> There is this new port of SWT existing in the tioport project.
> Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?

Do you mean to actually call it DWT, and do s/SWT/DWT/g on the source? I don't see what would be gained by doing that.  DWT and Tioport's SWT are not compatible, and I think it would be good to use different names for them too.  I don't see why it can't be called SWT even if it's ported to D.  The docs use SWT anyway.

To name some differences:  DWT uses char[] instead of String, supports delegates in some places, and it uses Phobos instead of Tango.  It also uses the 'import dwt.all;' idiom, which tioport doesn't.  I'm not saying that I want an swt.all module, by all means, and my own DWT project is already ported to tioport SWT.

Since DWT seems to be a dead project, I think that it's okay for SWT to use this newsgroup.  Or even better, if Walter would create a d.D.gui newsgroup. :)

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:24:42 +0200, torhu wrote:

> Frank Benoit wrote:
>> There is this new port of SWT existing in the tioport project. Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?
> 
> Do you mean to actually call it DWT, and do s/SWT/DWT/g on the source? I don't see what would be gained by doing that.  DWT and Tioport's SWT are not compatible, and I think it would be good to use different names for them too.  I don't see why it can't be called SWT even if it's ported to D.  The docs use SWT anyway.
> 
> To name some differences:  DWT uses char[] instead of String, supports delegates in some places, and it uses Phobos instead of Tango.  It also uses the 'import dwt.all;' idiom, which tioport doesn't.  I'm not saying that I want an swt.all module, by all means, and my own DWT project is already ported to tioport SWT.
> 
> Since DWT seems to be a dead project, I think that it's okay for SWT to use this newsgroup.  Or even better, if Walter would create a d.D.gui newsgroup. :)


I agree that a D.gui newsgroup would probably be best.

-JJR

bobef schrieb:
> Could you please explain what you mean by "Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?" ?

Shall SWT be moved to the DWT project?
Shall it be called DWT?
Shall it be the successor of the current DWT version?

> Of course.
> Probabely the Tango collection sources can be ported to phobos, so that a SWT user can use his prefered standard library  ?
> have a look at the TIOPORT Forum / Bobef s message.
> Bjoern

The ported SWT sources do not depend on tango. Only dejavu does.
So it only needs /someone/ who does the reimplementation of dejavu with
phobos. *blink*

> Do you mean to actually call it DWT, and do s/SWT/DWT/g on the source? I don't see what would be gained by doing that.  DWT and Tioport's SWT are not compatible, and I think it would be good to use different names for them too.  I don't see why it can't be called SWT even if it's ported to D.  The docs use SWT anyway.

Yes, the pure name is not really an advantage.
I am not sure in the moment, how to proceed with this project. Shall I ...
1. Stay with TioPort, and have SWT as a subproject?
2. make a project "Dejavu", that maintains all java derived sources and
also D libs building on top of this code?
3. make a "SWT" (or use DWT?) project that only is for SWT?

This is why I was posting this question.

> To name some differences:  DWT uses char[] instead of String, supports delegates in some places, and it uses Phobos instead of Tango.  It also uses the 'import dwt.all;' idiom, which tioport doesn't.  I'm not saying that I want an swt.all module, by all means, and my own DWT project is already ported to tioport SWT.

Probably the char[] vs. String issue will go away.
I am working on it.

> Since DWT seems to be a dead project, I think that it's okay for SWT to use this newsgroup.  Or even better, if Walter would create a d.D.gui newsgroup. :)

renaming the newsgroup makes sense. I second that.

Frank Benoit wrote:
>> Do you mean to actually call it DWT, and do s/SWT/DWT/g on the source? I
>> don't see what would be gained by doing that.  DWT and Tioport's SWT are
>> not compatible, and I think it would be good to use different names for
>> them too.  I don't see why it can't be called SWT even if it's ported to
>> D.  The docs use SWT anyway.
> 
> Yes, the pure name is not really an advantage.
> I am not sure in the moment, how to proceed with this project. Shall I ...
> 1. Stay with TioPort, and have SWT as a subproject?
> 2. make a project "Dejavu", that maintains all java derived sources and
> also D libs building on top of this code?
> 3. make a "SWT" (or use DWT?) project that only is for SWT?

Since other ports would probably depend on dejavu, it might make sense to keep that as part of the tioport project.  I guess you could create an 'swt' or 'dswt' project if you like, for separating the swt port from the rest.  The only strong opinion I have is that it shouldn't replace dwt, since it does things in a different way.

I think SWT should not be called DWT, because this way you can just copy/paste java code and don't have to replace SWT with DWT.

I think it will be a good idea to make it more D oriented like DWT. I.e. char[] instead of String and

widget.handleEvent(data,delegate(Event e){
//this saves a lot of time and space
});

I still can't understand the rest of the question. Who cares if it is called DWT or SWT or where the project is placed if the port is more up to date and more usable than DWT? Oh and.... import dwt.all is nice too. It sucks if you have to import 20 lines with org.eclipse.blah.blah.200.characters... You got the point :)

Frank Benoit Wrote:

> bobef schrieb:
> > Could you please explain what you mean by "Would it be appreciated to make it the next version of DWT?" ?
> 
> Shall SWT be moved to the DWT project?
> Shall it be called DWT?
> Shall it be the successor of the current DWT version?