PING: Nimbus patch

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> 2009/10/21 Joe Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>   
>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> 2009/9/5 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> 2009/9/3 Andrew John Hughes <gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org>:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 2009/9/3 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> 2009/8/31 Joseph D. Darcy <Joe.Darcy at sun.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> Without the JIBX build dependency, I would be happy for the Nimbus
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be ported to OpenJDK 6.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> The other immediate problem I see with this is that the OpenJDK
>>>>>>> version adds public API in the form of javax.swing.plaf.nimbus:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://builder.classpath.org/japi/openjdk7-openjdk6.html#pkg_javax_swing_plaf_nimbus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would need to be removed before Nimbus could be added to
>>>>>>> OpenJDK6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Yes, I'm not familiar with the details of how Nimbus was implemented in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 6 update release without java.* or javax.* API changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I'll take a look either today or tomorrow and see if I can produce
>>>>> something from the changesets that would work for 6.  If the javax.*
>>>>> classes are just a layer on top of the Sun implementation, it should
>>>>> be easy enough to just remove them.  I'm guessing this means Nimbus is
>>>>> part of the spec. for JDK7.  If only such processes were more open...
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew :-)Otherwise,
>>>>>
>>>>> Free Java Software Engineer
>>>>> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>>>>>
>>>>> Support Free Java!
>>>>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>>>>> http://openjdk.java.net
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
>>>>> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Ok so it appears Nimbus was in com.sun.java.swing.plaf.nimbus for the
>>>> proprietary JDK6 release (there are backwards compatibility hooks
>>>> there instead in OpenJDK7).  So I just reversed that move for our
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a webrev for the first Nimbus patch:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~andrew/6591875/webrev/jdk.patch
>>>>
>>>> This is just Nimbus as first imported with the JIBX requirement.  It's
>>>> already a big patch without bringing in all the Nimbus changes that
>>>> occurred afterwards (there are 10 further changesets)  My plan is to
>>>> backport each Nimbus-related changeset separately so that we
>>>> correspond as closely as possible with OpenJDK7 (and the same goes for
>>>> any pertinent future fixes).
>>>>
>>>> Does this look ok to push?  I've done a test build and was able to run
>>>> a simple Swing application using the Nimbus look and feel
>>>> (http://blog.fuseyism.com/index.php/2009/04/09/nimbus-arrives/)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew :-)
>>>>
>>>> Free Java Software Engineer
>>>> Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)
>>>>
>>>> Support Free Java!
>>>> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
>>>> http://openjdk.java.net
>>>>
>>>> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
>>>> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Now that b17 is out, can we look at getting the Nimbus stuff in,
>>> starting with this patch?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes!
>>
>> The boot JDK is incremented from 5 to 6, but I think that is fine in this
>> case.
>>
>>     
>
> It's necessary due to some of the AWT calls Nimbus uses.
>
>   
>> I'd like to have the jibx dependency removed by the time we are ready to tag
>> b18.
>>
>>     
>
> Don't worry, it's going! I just want to make sure we have a 1:1
> changeset mapping between OpenJDK6 and OpenJDK7.
>   

Yes, I agree that is a good property to maintain!

> I can create a single webrev for review for the multiple changesets
> remaining to speed things up.  It wasn't a good idea to do this for
> the first patch, given its size.
>   

Certainly.

Thanks,

-Joe