[Kde-java] Packaging an application

[Richard Dale]

On Monday 01 April 2002 8:13 pm, George Russell wrote:
> > I like the line 'All below this line is obsolete' refering to the
> > previous Swing version. How do you think the code compares?
>
> Swing has the advantage of ample documentation and GUI layout tools!
Yes, I think KDE needs more documentation even if you're a C++ programmer - 
and the java bindings could really use more than a couple of READMEs. I need 
to finish off the java uic option and Qt Designer syntax highlighting plugin 
to use as a GUI layout tool.

> And I've just sacrificed portability completely. Although, I will
> experiment with a Cocoa version on MacOS X using the same backend.
I did port the Qt java bindings to Mac OS X for the early beta of Qt 3 that 
Trolltech released as a demo version. But they haven't released a free 
version of Qt 3 for Mac OS X, so that is stuck now. But I don't think you can 
go far wrong with Cocoa - there might be even less code to write than KDE, 
and much less than Swing I would have thought.

> The use of KHTML makes an interface much easier. The ability to call
> konqueror et al to do the fetching, displaying of etexts removes most of
> the code previously that was buggy and / or hard to do. The use of KDE
> widgets makes it possible to integrate into the desktop - picking up things
> like colours.
>
> The code is far shorter than the swing version so far - but it is not
> comparable in terms of features yet.
>
> Of course, the Swing versions were left in a rather broken state, hence a
> kde rewrite. Which likely will be shorter and simpler since using khtmlpart
> is simpler than similar swing compomnents.
>
> More work to do!
Go to it!

-- Richard