Sean Russell wrote:
>
> I propose that the strongest argument for using native toolkits
> is to gain
> this integration with the user's desktop.  You can emulate look-and-feel,
> but you can't emulate integration.
>
> So the goal becomes one of getting a toolkit through which
> applications can
> integrate into the native environment, while providing a
> maximally portable
> API.  This is what SWT attempts to do; it tries to use native
> widgets, when
> they are available, and provide abstract widgets when they
> aren't.  In this
> way it provides an API which is portable, but is reasonably lightweight,
> fast, and integrated.  We hope.  As Chris said, SWT hasn't proven the
> concept yet, but as far as I can see, it is the only real hope of getting
> the portable native API.

I think you are right-on about widget integration with the native
environment, and this is a big part of what I find attractive in SWT.

> I'd like to start a mailing list specifically for discussing this
> topic, or
> a separate newsgroup.  I'd be happy to host that, but I'd like to
> know how
> many people would be interested in contributing to the discussion.

I really glad that you are taking enough interest in this to actually do
something. I would be interested in participating in the discussion
(although I have to admit I'm currently stretched pretty thin between my
paying work and the FreeRIDE project). But this is (I believe) a critical
topic and I will participate as much as I am able.

My hope would be that the result of such a discussion would generate enough
interest that some subgroup of the participants would be willing start a
project to actually do it (what ever "it" turned out to be).

Curt