Latest @
This thread is locked - replies are not allowed.
Spotlight Features
The Rich Engineering Heritage Behind Dependency Injection
Andrew McVeigh takes us on a tour of the rich heritage behind dependency injection, what it represents, and tells us why its here to stay.
Java, the OLPC, and community responsibility
The "One Laptop Per Child" project has a great device ready to ship, but there's no Java on there. Let's think about working together to put Java on OLPC!
Will SWT work on 64-bit Leopard?
At 3:28 PM on Jun 21, 2007, Michael Urban
wrote:
Q: So now I'm wondering, can 64-bit unix kernel calls be mixed freely within a 32-bit Carbon GUI environment?
A: No, the Mac OS programming model does not support mixing 32-bit and 64-bit calls in the same process (regardless of whether you're using Carbon, Cocoa, or just BSD Unix calls).
In my newsletter article this week, I mentioned the fact that the Carbon UI elements would not be ported to 64-bit, and speculated what that might do to SWT given a 64-bit JVM on Leopard.
The above statement from Apple engineer seems to confirm that it is not possible to mix 64-bit and 32-bit calls within the same process.
What does this mean for SWT on Leopard? Does it mean SWT applications will not run at all under the 64-bit Leopard JVM? Or that they will have to be "demoted" to 32-bit mode somehow?
I'm sure the SWT and Eclipse engineers have probably thought about this. Are any of them around here who can offer some insights on what no 64-bit Carbon will mean for SWT and 64-bit Java on Leopard?
20 replies (
Comments off)
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
Well - there is always the solution to run "Eclipse on Swing".See: http://eos.sourceforge.net
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
eos doesn't appear to have a lot of development activity. Take a look at the last 12 months: http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=175292&ugn=eos&type=cvs&mode=12monthsRe: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
Well I should know better, because I founded itDevelopment is going on quite well. I just use my own CVS due to problems with Sourceforge and obviously forgot to apply to SF for quite some time. Anyway - SWTSwing/EOS development is going on very well and we will soon have a new release.
Recently I bought a Macbook to get it running on OSX - there are a couple of bugs we never got our hands on due to lack of hardware. Now we already moved to Java6 with SWTSwing/EOS - but OSX still only has a stable Java5, and some other issues: http://jroller.com/page/dk
-Dieter
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
> Recently I bought a Macbook to get it running on OSX> - there are a couple of bugs we never got our hands
> on due to lack of hardware. Now we already moved to
> Java6 with SWTSwing/EOS - but OSX still only has a
> stable Java5, and some other issues:
> http://jroller.com/page/dk
Well always using the latest JDK puts a burden on users and developers
I hope jdk6 will only be needed for system-tray not not other things.
lg Clemens
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
Well that's only a work-around for the problem. We are then once more in the situation not using native widgets but Swing.Don't get me wrong I really really appreciate what you've done with all this EOS stuff but not providing something native for OS-X is a major problem for SWT IMHO. Switching to EOS can only be a temporary workaround.
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
Just to clarify some of the FUD; SWT on Leopard works fine, and there's no problems with running RCP applications on it either. In fact, there's some specific fixes that will be coming in Leopard to deal with some of the Java WebStart issues (since JWS uses AWT to display its loading dialogs, and incompatibilities between event handlers cause the problem).As for whether we'll see Eclipse running on a 64-bit JVM on Mac ... that's unlikely at present, due to SWT's use of Carbon (and it's "Carbon", not "Carbon UI" -- the entire framework is pegged at 32-bit and unlikely to move forward). However, there's no reason that SWT should be restricted to Carbon, other than a lack of time/effort to provide an SWT/Cocoa implementation instead. After all, Linux has got different window managers, and the whole naming convention for the SWT bundles permits different UI managers -- so an org.eclipse.swt.cocoa.macosx isn't out of the question either.
Lastly, it's worth noting that there's only one build that Eclipse supports for 64-bit, and that's Linux. So nothing changes from where we are today in terms of supported operating systems or VMs. In any case, 64-bit support often hinders rather than helps a VM's performance; for a given problem size, the memory requirements for a 64-bit VM are approximately double that of a 32-bit VM, so if you've got a theoretical maximum 4Gb 32-bit JVM, then you'd need an 8Gb 64-bit JVM to do the same problem in. And since we're a way away from having that kind of memory installed in a client desktop means that there's (a) nothing to worry about for the forseeable future, and (b) by the time it does become an issue we'll have Mac OS X Fluffy 10.6 that will solve those problems
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
It wasn't FUD. And yes, I know SWT works fine on Leopard I have tried it. But the current version of the JVM is not 64 bit. The version that ships with Leopard will be if my understanding is correct.Again, my specific issue was whether it would work on a 64 bit JVM or not.
It's true that there is no reason that SWT has to be restricted to Carbon. But my understanding is that there is a lot of opposition to porting it to Cocoa, mostly based on technical reasons. Such as the fact that the event handler model is so different.
Please do not take me the wrong way. I want Java to work well on all platforms. So I hope that when Leopard actually ships, SWT works on it without any hiccups.
P.S: Please tell me that Mac OS X 10.6 is not really code named "Fluffy?"
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
There's a difference between 'There will be' and 'There will only be'. Leopard will be able to run on 32-bit PPC G4 processors, as well as some 32-bit Curo Duo machines/laptops. In fact, only a few systems (G5,Xeon) are capable of the 64-bit execution paths. The majority of installed Apple base is still on 32-bit machines.Therefore, there will be support for JVM in 32-bit mode. I'd go as far as saying that it's likely (with any native code path, not just Carbon) that it will be the default, and you'd have to run with some kind of -XX64bit flag if it's needed.
The FUD that's being spread is your sensationalist title/style "Bad news for SWT on Leopard" when (a) there is no bad news, (b) you're referring to SWT on a 64-bit JVM, which as noted is not what the majority of installed base will even have access to, and (c) based on your unfounded assumption of how a VM that (as you whine about) you don't have access to.
So, your argument is: "Based on my guess of how it might work on a future system that I don't have access to, I think there might be problems for SWT". Sadly, it was picked up by some other blog sites and this FUD is spreading, which is why it's necessary to inform as many people as possible that this is FUD and an inaccurate report.
Finally, give credit to Apple for not screwing developers. Leopard is in a feature-stable and beta releases from now until October; a 64-bit JVM is on the horizon, it's not suddenly going to be swapped in at the last minute. And in much the same way that any Java app can select what version of Java it needs, and that the OS can have multiple versions installed, it's quite likely that there will be both.
Alex.
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
> Sadly, it was picked up by some other blog sites and this> FUD is spreading, which is why it's necessary to inform as
> many people as possible that this is FUD and an
> inaccurate report.
Except so far, nothing I said is inaccurate. I specfically questioned whether SWT would work under a 64 bit JVM running on Leopard por not. And at this point, even you have admitted that it probably will not.
I never said anything about whether it will work in 32 bit mode or not. I know it will.
> (b) you're referring to SWT on a 64-bit JVM, which as noted
> is not what the majority of installed base will even have
> access to, and (c) based on your unfounded assumption of how a
> VM that (as you whine about) you don't have access to.
My understanding is that when Leopard actually ships, the version of Java that is installed will be 64-bit by default on platforms that support 64-bit leopard. If I am wrong about that, then please correct me.
But if I am right about it, than even your own statements support my concern. Which is that SWT will NOT work on the JVM that is installed by default on Leopard when running on a 64-bit system.
You seem to be skirting around the issue that I raised, rather than addressing it directly. Why can't you just give me a direct answer instead of accusing me of spreading FUD?
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
The title of the post doesn't convey the issue, which is whether Leopard's JVM on 64-bit machines will be 64-bit by default. "Bad news for SWT on Leopard" spreads uncertainty about what the issue actually is, and that's one of the reasons for the complaint.The fear/doubt part is that your assumption (that it is 64-bit by default) is the crux of the issue. If it is, and therefore 32-bit APIs don't work (including SWT and other Carbon apps), then it's a problem. However, there is no evidence to back up your assumption, and at this point, it is still that.
I suggest we retitle the thread "Will SWT work on 64-bit Leopard?" since that is less confrontational and actually nails the problem on the head, and we can put this disagreement behind us.
Alex.
Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
Ok. I will retitle the thread as you suggest. And yes, let us leave it at that and put it behind us.Re: Bad News for SWT on Leopard?
> Ok. I will retitle the thread as you suggest. And> yes, let us leave it at that and put it behind us.
Michael, there does seem to be a trend emerging in the title of your posts - write a provocative headline that is not substantiated by the post. Similar to your recent 'Move Over Eclipse. NetBeans 6 Rocks!' posting. Makes me think you are looking for a job with a tabloid.
You pee !!!
AWT is a stupid idea.So thank you Apple.
Re: You pee !!!
I did not pee!Steve