Why mess with AWT when they had to bring up Swing?

Discussion in 'Java' started by EvErEady, Aug 2, 2003.

  1. EvErEady

    EvErEady Guest

    Hi!

    I was just wondering why Sun decided to change the classes for AWT when they
    were going to bring Swing into the picture; they could've just left AWT the
    way it was for compatibility with Java 1.1 applications and introduce its
    creative ideas in Swing in Java 1.2.
    EvErEady, Aug 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "EvErEady" <> writes:

    > I was just wondering why Sun decided to change the classes for AWT when they
    > were going to bring Swing into the picture; they could've just left AWT the
    > way it was for compatibility with Java 1.1 applications and introduce its
    > creative ideas in Swing in Java 1.2.


    Because Swing builds on AWT.
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen, Aug 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. EvErEady

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:54:34 +0400, "EvErEady"
    <> wrote or quoted :

    >I was just wondering why Sun decided to change the classes for AWT when they
    >were going to bring Swing into the picture; they could've just left AWT the
    >way it was for compatibility with Java 1.1 applications and introduce its
    >creative ideas in Swing in Java 1.2.


    What changes are you referring to? Did you break one of your Apps?

    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
    See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
    Roedy Green, Aug 2, 2003
    #3
  4. "EvErEady" <> wrote:

    > Hi!
    >
    > I was just wondering why Sun decided to change the classes for AWT
    > when they were going to bring Swing into the picture; they could've
    > just left AWT the way it was for compatibility with Java 1.1
    > applications and introduce its creative ideas in Swing in Java 1.2.


    Sun wanted to reuse code from AWT to build Swing. They could have
    extracted all the AWT functionality needed into some com.sun.* package,
    change that all they wanted and implement AWT and Swing on top of that
    without any coupling between AWT and Swing. Instead of doing the right
    thing, my guess is they decided to change AWT and subclass it because it
    was less work at the time.

    Other factors that might have affected the decision: a hope of
    interoperability between Swing and AWT components, making a statement
    "our APIs are good, we're not going to just deprecate AWT", seemingly
    lesser learning curve when migrating to Swing, early optimization.

    So now we have IE's AWT, thankfully-defunc PersonalJava's AWT, AWTs in
    PersonalJava-reborns Personal Profile and Personal Basis Profile and AWT
    in J2SE. The horror, the horror...

    --
    No address munging in use. I like the smell of nuked accounts in the
    morning.
    Timo Kinnunen, Aug 2, 2003
    #4
  5. "Jos A. Horsmeier" <> writes:

    > But isn't that quite 'au contraire' every object oriented design principle?


    No, you build on existing code: After all, don't you subclass Swingf
    classes when writing your own Swing applications?
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen, Aug 3, 2003
    #5
  6. "Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Jos A. Horsmeier" <> writes:
    >
    > > But isn't that quite 'au contraire' every object oriented design principle?

    >
    > No, you build on existing code: After all, don't you subclass Swingf
    > classes when writing your own Swing applications?


    True all true, but maybe it wasn't clear that I was responding to both
    you and EvErEady --

    "Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "EvErEady" <> writes:
    >
    > > I was just wondering why Sun decided to change the classes for AWT when they
    > > were going to bring Swing into the picture; they could've just left AWT the
    > > way it was for compatibility with Java 1.1 applications and introduce its
    > > creative ideas in Swing in Java 1.2.

    >
    > Because Swing builds on AWT.


    Changing 'base' classes just to be able to 'build' on the changed classes
    is not very OO-ish, is it?
    OTOH, I haven't noticed any funny changes in AWT just to accommodate
    the Swing classes ...

    kind regards,

    Jos
    Jos A. Horsmeier, Aug 4, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. _.-=
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    475
  2. Robert Mark Bram
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    5,955
    Robert Mark Bram
    Dec 11, 2003
  3. mkrause
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    670
    mkrause
    May 6, 2005
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,828
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  5. norfernuman

    Killfile - what they had in mind

    norfernuman, Jun 25, 2004, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    164
    krakle
    Jun 28, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page