next version of DWT?

[BLS (Trutz Blanke Hans)]

Hi, just think that instead of using dswt  SWT/D is more significant.
Trutz Bla

torhu Wrote:

> 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.