Thread: [javaCompiler-users] Win32 appearance enhancement
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
soapy
Menu
▾
▴
javacompiler-users
|
From: M. B. Al-N. <ha...@ce...> - 2006-10-09 23:02:41
|
i suggest to add manifest file for each compiled exe by javaCompiler ;-) , what's your opinion ? look at the attached pics they shown before adding manifest and after adding manifest file. the difference was so big, exe app with manifest has good appearance . in the second attached you can see an example for manifest file written for VLC media player. we can do like it for any app generated by javaCompiler . -- Best Regards =D8=AA=D8=AD=D9=8A=D8=A7=D8=AA=D9=8A Muhammad Bashir Al-Noimi =D9=85=D8=AD=D9=85=D8=AF =D8=A8=D8=B4=D9=8A=D8=B1= =D8=A7=D9=84=D9=86=D8=B9=D9=8A=D9=85=D9=8A =D9=85=D8=AF=D9=88=D9=86=D8=AA=D9=8A My Blog http://www.hali-sy.net/bashir |
|
From: Marco T. <mt...@gm...> - 2006-10-10 06:44:35
|
M. Bashir Al-Noimi wrote: > i suggest to add manifest file for each compiled exe by javaCompiler > ;-) , what's your opinion ? In my understanding there are these four possibilities: - Console applications: doesn't need a manifest - SWT applications: Are forced to use the manifest since v3.2 by SWT - AWT/Swing applications: Currently uses swingWT which uses SWT, so see above - AWT/Swing with classpath: will use GTK, so no need for a manifest (I'm not sure on that one) So I think this is currently more a SWT than a javaCompiler concern. But you're welcome to tell me the opposite... Marco > look at the attached pics they shown before adding manifest and after > adding manifest file. the difference was so big, exe app with manifest > has good appearance . > > in the second attached you can see an example for manifest file written > for VLC media player. we can do like it for any app generated by > javaCompiler . > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> > <assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0"> > <assemblyIdentity > version="1.0.0.0" > processorArchitecture="X86" > name="VideoLAN.VLC" > type="win32" > /> > <description>see http://www.videolan.org/</description> > <dependency> > <dependentAssembly> > <assemblyIdentity > type="win32" > name="Microsoft.Windows.Common-Controls" > version="6.0.0.0" > processorArchitecture="X86" > publicKeyToken="6595b64144ccf1df" > language="*" > /> > </dependentAssembly> > </dependency> > </assembly> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > javaCompiler-users mailing list > jav...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javacompiler-users |
|
From: M. B. Al-N. <ha...@ce...> - 2006-10-10 09:42:15
|
Marco Trudel wrote: > - SWT applications: Are forced to use the manifest since v3.2 by SWT > no i don't think that ! I'm using swt 3.2, all the apps need manifest to take the new style. > So I think this is currently more a SWT than a javaCompiler concern. But > you're welcome to tell me the opposite... i've tested all the cases for swt gui i got the same result ... all the apps need manifest swt didn't force any app to take the new style of appearance . |
|
From: Marco T. <mt...@gm...> - 2006-10-10 09:54:10
|
M. Bashir Al-Noimi wrote: > Marco Trudel wrote: >> - SWT applications: Are forced to use the manifest since v3.2 by SWT >> > no i don't think that ! I'm using swt 3.2, all the apps need manifest to > take the new style. Check that thread: http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-swt-dev/msg05063.html >> So I think this is currently more a SWT than a javaCompiler concern. But >> you're welcome to tell me the opposite... > i've tested all the cases for swt gui i got the same result ... all the > apps need manifest swt didn't force any app to take the new style of > appearance . I don't know what a manifest is doing exactly. Are there different settings possible? If yes, then the SWT manifest doesn't exactly do what you want, you'll have to handle that yourself. If no, then you're not using SWT 3.2 ;-) Marco |
|
From: M. B. Al-N. <ha...@ce...> - 2006-10-10 21:03:35
Attachments:
po2tab.7z
|
Marco Trudel wrote: > > Check that thread: > http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-swt-dev/msg05063.html > this thread talking about eclipse not about native things ! :-\ > > I don't know what a manifest is doing exactly. manifest do great appearance for Win32 apps jut like GTK+ in Linux > Are there different > settings possible? If yes, then the SWT manifest doesn't exactly do what > you want, you'll have to handle that yourself. > If no, then you're not using SWT 3.2 ;-) I'm sure that I'm using latest SWT version cuz I've downloaded it form 10 minutes ! :-P i think you couldn't understand what i mean, so in the attachment file a small swt project i've compiled it by javaCompiler it shown what manifest doing . the result so different (ugly appearance without manifest). For that i suggest to do that in the next version of javaCompiler : include standard manifest file into this path javaCompiler\ressources, when the user want to build Win32 app javaCompiler copy this standard file to the path of compiled app and then rename manifest file to the app name. |
|
From: Marco T. <mt...@gm...> - 2006-10-10 21:14:20
|
M. Bashir Al-Noimi wrote: > Marco Trudel wrote: >> Check that thread: >> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/platform-swt-dev/msg05063.html >> > this thread talking about eclipse not about native things ! :-\ There's no difference in this case my friend. >> I don't know what a manifest is doing exactly. > manifest do great appearance for Win32 apps jut like GTK+ in Linux > >> Are there different >> settings possible? If yes, then the SWT manifest doesn't exactly do what >> you want, you'll have to handle that yourself. >> If no, then you're not using SWT 3.2 ;-) > I'm sure that I'm using latest SWT version cuz I've downloaded it form > 10 minutes ! :-P Stupid question: Did you update the SWT version from javaCompiler too? If not, there you have the problem... > i think you couldn't understand what i mean, so in the attachment file a > small swt project i've compiled it by javaCompiler it shown what > manifest doing . the result so different (ugly appearance without manifest). I think you don't understand that javaCompiler doesn't do anything else than use SWT 3.139. > For that i suggest to do that in the next version of javaCompiler : > include standard manifest file into this path javaCompiler\ressources, > when the user want to build Win32 app javaCompiler copy this standard > file to the path of compiled app and then rename manifest file to the > app name. Nope, SWT is doing this already ;-) You just have to be really 100% absolutely sure you use SWT 3.2... Really completely fully fully 100% completly sure... Fully... Marco |
|
From: M. B. Al-N. <ha...@ce...> - 2006-10-10 21:58:48
|
Marco Trudel wrote: > Stupid question: Did you update the SWT version from javaCompiler too? > If not, there you have the problem.. > SWT version 3.235 >> For that i suggest to do that in the next version of javaCompiler : >> include standard manifest file into this path javaCompiler\ressources, >> when the user want to build Win32 app javaCompiler copy this standard >> file to the path of compiled app and then rename manifest file to the >> app name. >> > > Nope, SWT is doing this already ;-) > You just have to be really 100% absolutely sure you use SWT 3.2... > Really completely fully fully 100% completly sure... Fully... maybe i'm sleepy ... SWT did nothing i've version 3.235 ! >:o |
|
From: Marco T. <mt...@gm...> - 2006-10-11 07:33:32
|
M. Bashir Al-Noimi wrote: > Marco Trudel wrote: >> Stupid question: Did you update the SWT version from javaCompiler too? >> If not, there you have the problem.. >> > SWT version 3.235 How do you compile? Unmanaged project? Managed project? How did you replace SWT in javaCompiler if you use a managed project? >>> For that i suggest to do that in the next version of javaCompiler : >>> include standard manifest file into this path javaCompiler\ressources, >>> when the user want to build Win32 app javaCompiler copy this standard >>> file to the path of compiled app and then rename manifest file to the >>> app name. >>> >> Nope, SWT is doing this already ;-) >> You just have to be really 100% absolutely sure you use SWT 3.2... >> Really completely fully fully 100% completly sure... Fully... > maybe i'm sleepy ... SWT did nothing i've version 3.235 ! >:o Not even when running from java? It definitely does some ugly things for me. As I said, there might be different influences by manifests and the SWT one doesn't do enough for you. But it definitely does something for me... Marco |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X