Comments on: Why bother with SWT over Swing? http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/ A blog about Java, REST, and other stuff. Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:31:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: zeeshan http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-60365 zeeshan Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:22:37 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-60365 I am an experienced swing developer but never touched SWT. Now I a forced to use SWT since someone else in the company used it for a related GUI. I hope it would be good to learn SWT, but no idea what I am going into yet. I will post my findings. I am an experienced swing developer but never touched SWT. Now I a forced to use SWT since someone else in the company used it for a related GUI. I hope it would be good to learn SWT, but no idea what I am going into yet. I will post my findings.

]]> By: Pat http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-40382 Pat Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:56:54 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-40382 I am learining SWT on eclipse (current project), and i just hope it is better/same as c++ with QT4! So far i am not impressed as already SWT is missing a good Open source GUI designer/builder I am learining SWT on eclipse (current project), and i just hope it is better/same as
c++ with QT4!
So far i am not impressed as already SWT is missing a good Open source GUI designer/builder

]]> By: Vince http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-192 Vince Tue, 02 May 2006 13:30:00 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-192 I do plenty of both JFC (Swing) and EclipseRCP/SWT. I'm more proficient in JFC, yet I'm finding that more projects are tending toward SWT. My first reason for SWT is their Tree component. It is much better than the JTree and JTreeTable in JFC. Almost all of my apps have a complex Tree view. While one shouldn't center around a single component when choosing a UI framework, I will say it isn't the only one. Probably the more powerful reason is the SWT Browser component. It is essentially similar to the commercially available WebRenderer toolkit. RCPs need browser windows, and JFC just doesn't have an out-of-the-box answer here. Mattise is compeling for JFC development, but the GroupLayout isn't even a standard part of the JFC yet. Personally, I prefer JFC APIs to SWT, but as I get better SWT I do find some aspects of their APIs to be well designed. I do plenty of both JFC (Swing) and EclipseRCP/SWT. I’m more proficient in JFC, yet I’m finding that more projects are tending toward SWT. My first reason for SWT is their Tree component. It is much better than the JTree and JTreeTable in JFC. Almost all of my apps have a complex Tree view. While one shouldn’t center around a single component when choosing a UI framework, I will say it isn’t the only one.

Probably the more powerful reason is the SWT Browser component. It is essentially similar to the commercially available WebRenderer toolkit. RCPs need browser windows, and JFC just doesn’t have an out-of-the-box answer here. Mattise is compeling for JFC development, but the GroupLayout isn’t even a standard part of the JFC yet.

Personally, I prefer JFC APIs to SWT, but as I get better SWT I do find some aspects of their APIs to be well designed.

]]> By: Zoft http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-130 Zoft Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:03:58 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-130 >Anytime you have an acrhitecture shift like Apple has, SWT will ALWAYS lag behind. >that is my point. But you are making my point. Does the fact that SWT is not owned by Sun (or Apple) and is not shipped with the operating system or the JDK have any bearing on the quality of the library? In fact, SWT is ahead on Vista. It already looks and feels right. Zoft >Anytime you have an acrhitecture shift like Apple has, SWT will ALWAYS lag behind.
>that is my point.

But you are making my point. Does the fact that SWT is not owned by Sun (or Apple) and is not shipped with the operating system or the JDK have any bearing on the quality of the library? In fact, SWT is ahead on Vista. It already looks and feels right.

Zoft

]]> By: Patrick http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-97 Patrick Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:06:09 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-97 IMHO RCP is the future of java GUI development. RCP is not just fancy windows and buttons, it offers a framework that makes you focusing on the business case development. So it saves you a lot of time and pain that you'd normally have with swing. Think of the pain to implement drag and drop between different components. Use RCP and you don't need to care about this stuff. I love it! IMHO RCP is the future of java GUI development. RCP is not just fancy windows and buttons, it offers a framework that makes you focusing on the business case development. So it saves you a lot of time and pain that you’d normally have with swing. Think of the pain to implement drag and drop between different components. Use RCP and you don’t need to care about this stuff. I love it!

]]> By: Simon Phipps http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-92 Simon Phipps Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:53:18 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-92 I think you're spot on here, Ryan, and this is the exact problem I have always had with SWT, independent of my employer (which changed during development by the way). As Shai says, I too suspect it would never have seen daylight is Swing had got better sooner - it would just have stayed in the labs at OTI. The entire success of the Java platform has come from it being that, a platform, where an entire set of technologies is always delivered intact so that the developer can rely on them being present and compatible. The Java platform succeeded because every platform provider was required to ship at least the full platform; that way, each time there was a development or change in the underlying system, the platform provider was required to allow for it and we weren't all waiting for some unaccountable third party to deliver parts of it. SWT breaks that model. Together with JFace and especially GEF it encourages dependence on a non-mandatory third-party-supplied subsystem that replaces a fundamental subsystem of the Java platform. It is certain to break on all OSes sometimes and on some OS, eventually, for all time when no-one can be bothered to re-implement it. Regardless of its technical merits (and, for the Windows programmer, it certainly has some), the fact it will never be guaranteed to be available on every Java instance rules it out as a technology in my view - high time it was taken to the JCP. I think you’re spot on here, Ryan, and this is the exact problem I have always had with SWT, independent of my employer (which changed during development by the way). As Shai says, I too suspect it would never have seen daylight is Swing had got better sooner - it would just have stayed in the labs at OTI.

The entire success of the Java platform has come from it being that, a platform, where an entire set of technologies is always delivered intact so that the developer can rely on them being present and compatible. The Java platform succeeded because every platform provider was required to ship at least the full platform; that way, each time there was a development or change in the underlying system, the platform provider was required to allow for it and we weren’t all waiting for some unaccountable third party to deliver parts of it.

SWT breaks that model. Together with JFace and especially GEF it encourages dependence on a non-mandatory third-party-supplied subsystem that replaces a fundamental subsystem of the Java platform. It is certain to break on all OSes sometimes and on some OS, eventually, for all time when no-one can be bothered to re-implement it. Regardless of its technical merits (and, for the Windows programmer, it certainly has some), the fact it will never be guaranteed to be available on every Java instance rules it out as a technology in my view - high time it was taken to the JCP.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-90 Ryan Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:48:11 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-90 That's not the point I'm making Zoft, and if you actually read the post yo might have been able to make a valid counter point. The fact that SWT doesn't run native on OS X Intel yet even though it is mostly Java is my point. Anytime you have an acrhitecture shift like Apple has, SWT will ALWAYS lag behind. That is my point. That’s not the point I’m making Zoft, and if you actually read the post yo might have been able to make a valid counter point. The fact that SWT doesn’t run native on OS X Intel yet even though it is mostly Java is my point. Anytime you have an acrhitecture shift like Apple has, SWT will ALWAYS lag behind. That is my point.

]]> By: zoft http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-89 zoft Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:11:15 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-89 These arguments aren't valid at all. They all come down to, "SWT is not Swing", meaning that it doesn't come bundled with the JDK or the Mac OS. There is also a bunch of speculation about Vista. My money is on SWT to look and feel right on Vista (native widgets) versus Swing (an emulation) Zoft These arguments aren’t valid at all. They all come down to, “SWT is not Swing”, meaning that it doesn’t come bundled with the JDK or the Mac OS. There is also a bunch of speculation about Vista. My money is on SWT to look and feel right on Vista (native widgets) versus Swing (an emulation)

Zoft

]]> By: Christophe http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-81 Christophe Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:58:24 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-81 There is more in SWT than a bunch of widgets: J/Face. You will quickly find the Swing MVC and threading models painful compared to SWT+J/Face. There is more in SWT than a bunch of widgets: J/Face.
You will quickly find the Swing MVC and threading models painful compared to SWT+J/Face.

]]> By: Shai http://www.damnhandy.com/2006/02/12/why-bother-with-swt-over-swing/#comment-79 Shai Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:05:44 +0000 http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=50#comment-79 SWT started development when Swing was brand new and very bad. By the time SWT entered beta Swing improved but didn't match its potential (JDK 1.3 era). According to friends at IBM SWT would not come into being if Swing was at the JDK 1.3 level back when SWT development started. Today with Swing showing the massive improvements the choice of using SWT is slowley becoming obsolete and the main people to use it are: 1. People building highly platform specific code. 2. Open source developers who want a full "free" stack. 3. RCP developers who want the Eclipse look and feel. 4. Eclipse plugin developers. 5. The debate between lightweight/heavyweight components is a very old one (it existed in Smalltalk toolkits) some people picked sides 20 years ago and will never shift sides. Most new projects use Swing and most existing projects are based on Swing, it is more mature and simpler to use/extend. SWT started development when Swing was brand new and very bad. By the time SWT entered beta Swing improved but didn’t match its potential (JDK 1.3 era). According to friends at IBM SWT would not come into being if Swing was at the JDK 1.3 level back when SWT development started.
Today with Swing showing the massive improvements the choice of using SWT is slowley becoming obsolete and the main people to use it are:
1. People building highly platform specific code.
2. Open source developers who want a full “free” stack.
3. RCP developers who want the Eclipse look and feel.
4. Eclipse plugin developers.
5. The debate between lightweight/heavyweight components is a very old one (it existed in Smalltalk toolkits) some people picked sides 20 years ago and will never shift sides.

Most new projects use Swing and most existing projects are based on Swing, it is more mature and simpler to use/extend.

]]>