DWT package mapping?

John Reimer terminal.node at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 19:10:37 PDT 2008

Hello Frank,

> At the moment there are these mappings
> org.eclipse.swt -> dwt
> org.eclipse     -> dwtx
> Symbols:
> SWT             -> DWT
> SWTError        -> DWTError
> SWTException    -> DWTException
> ...
> But there are more candidates for the dwt project.
> com.novocode    -> ??
> com.ibm.icu     -> ??
> org.osgi        -> ??
> Where to put them?
> And the rule for renaming should be consistent and open to new
> packages.
> But why do renaming anyway? Is it really that hard to type? Can IDEs
> and
> collective imports help?
> What also is bad about the renaming, is that it must be done all over
> again. That is time consuming when preparing Java source.
> So I think... What about changing all the renaming back to the
> original? Would that work? What do you think?

DWT really is SWT throughout.  Even the coding style is almost completely 
Java-like.  I think that the only reason it remains DWT is because of the 
original porting precedent that chose the name. :)

It wouldn't bother me if DWT reverted back to the SWT name.  In fact, that 
probably makes a lot of sense. I'm guessing that it might even receive more 
recognition as a genuine SWT port from the SWT team and others if it were 
to revert to that name.

BUT, I really really hope we don't adopt the long package names so typical 
of the Java realm.  "org.eclipse.*" prepended to the dwt namespace would 
be painful.  That's one Javaism that I hope stays away from D.  But, if there 
are some REALLY good reasons that the complete package names should be included, 
maybe I could be made to agree.  I'm not very enthusiastic about Java in 
general, so anything that reminds me too much of Java or causes me to forget 
that I'm actually using D (which is supposed to improve the programmer's 
life)... is not good.

That's my opinion, anyway. :)


More information about the Digitalmars-d-dwt mailing list