Make your own free website on Tripod.com
IBM Skip to main content
Advanced search
     IBM home  |  Products & services  |  Support & downloads   |  My account

IBM developerWorks : Java technology : Java technology articles
developerWorks
JFC vs. AFC:
e-mail it!
Contents:
Introduction
Background of AFC and JFC
Microsoft's Application Foundation Classes
JavaSoft Java Foundation Classes (JFC)
And the Winner Is....
About the author
Rate this article
Which Foundation Is for You?

Peter Haggar
Software Engineer, IBM
March 1998

Although the Java Abstract Window Toolkit (AWT) is a good first step toward creating a truly cross-platform GUI class library, the need is great for a more robust graphical user interface (GUI) class library that GUI developers can rely on to create leading applications.

This paper is also available in: Latvian and Simplified Chinese.

In order to solve some of AWT's problems, two new class libraries have emerged: the Java Foundation Classes (JFC) from JavaSoft and the Application Foundation Classes (AFC) from Microsoft. Which one prevails will depend on the quality, features, and, ultimately, the acceptance of each respective library in the industry.

The Java AWT represents Java's first attempt at a cross-platform GUI class library. Creating a truly cross-platform GUI class library is a daunting task and not one likely to be perfected the first time around. Although the AWT is a good first step, the need is great for a more robust graphical user interface (GUI) class library that GUI developers can rely on to create leading applications.

Two new class libraries have emerged that are attempting to solve some of AWT's problems: the Java Foundation Classes (JFC) from JavaSoft and the Application Foundation Classes (AFC) from Microsoft. Which one prevails will depend on the quality, features, and, ultimately, the acceptance of each respective library in the industry.

Introduction
One of the problems with the AWT stems from its design goals. The goal of the AWT is a cross-platform GUI library that uses the native windows and controls on the application's run-time platform. Implementing a library using the native windows and controls has its benefits. Since it uses native controls, the AWT provides a familiar look and feel to the applet or application, no matter which platform the code is running on. However, there are some drawbacks to this approach. The most notable drawback is referred to as the "lowest common denominator" problem. Since the AWT is written using native system windows and controls, the functionality is minimal since it has to span multiple platforms. This is because the interface represents the common services that can be used across the many platforms Java supports. If a feature is to be included in the AWT that is not on all platforms the AWT supports, the AWT must provide that support via an emulation layer. This emulation layer is necessary if the promise of "Write Once, Run Anywhere" is to be realized.

The industry recognized the problems related with the native, or peer-based, window toolkit strategy employed by the AWT. Some leading industry vendors set out to solve this problem with their own class libraries. Two Java class libraries emerged from this work: Netscape's Internet Foundation Classes (IFC) and Microsoft's Application Foundation Classes (AFC).

IBM, Netscape, and JavaSoft agreed to work together and leverage Netscape's IFC technology (available since 12/11/96) to produce the JFC. This cooperation between leading industry partners thrust JFC to the forefront in the GUI class library battle. The two foremost GUI class libraries are now the JFC from JavaSoft and the AFC from Microsoft.

Background of AFC and JFC
April 2, 1997, was a big day for Java GUI class libraries. Both Microsoft and JavaSoft announced competing libraries during the JavaOne developer conference in San Francisco, California. Microsoft announced the availability of a preview release for AFC. AFC was originally announced in January, but this was the first time code for it had been delivered. Meanwhile, JavaSoft announced that they were working with IBM and Netscape to produce the JFC. A preview release of JFC is available now on JavaSoft's Web site: http://www.javasoft.com. AFC is available from Microsoft's Web site as part of their SDK 2.0. See: http://www.microsoft.com/java. Both technologies provide advanced user interface features and lay to rest the claim that you must "dumb down" interfaces for cross-platform and Web applications. This "dumbing down" had been the mantra of some critics of the AWT.

Each of these libraries is written to support what are called peerless, or windowless, components. This means the user interface controls are drawn by the library itself, not by the system the application is running on. The result is that the user interface and behavior of the application will be the same on any platform the code is running on. Since these libraries don't use any native windows or controls, but implement them internally, they are not bound to the user interface features of the platform.

Some people would also argue that this common look and feel is the future of user interfaces, and that the AWT style native look and feel is a thing of the past. I think that as the platform on which you are running your applications becomes less and less relevant, the common look and feel employed by AFC and JFC will be the norm. If Java becomes as ubiquitous as we hope, I would like to see the same user interface and look and feel to my applications whether I am accessing them from a PC running NT or OS/2, a Macintosh, a Network Computer (NC), or a Personal Digital Assitant (PDA).

Microsoft's Application Foundation Classes
When discussing the AFC, many people are referring to the GUI class library portion. Actually, AFC is a little more than that. AFC contains the following packages:

  • com.ms.ui-user interface controls. (Typically, when people talk about AFC they are referring to the functionality in this package.)
  • com.ms.fx-a graphics package. This package contains Java classes for the manipulation of graphics, fonts, and text.
  • com.ms.ui.event-an event handling package. This package contains support for the Java 1.1 event model.
  • com.ms.ui.resource-resource files. This package contains support for Win32 resource files in Java applications.
  • com.ms.util.cab-CAB files. This package contains support for cabinet (CAB) file creation and extraction.

Most of the discussion in this section focuses on the user interface aspects of the AFC.

AFC Overview
The AFC class library is a high-level framework for Java application development. AFC is written entirely in Java, which means it will run cross-platform on any Java-compliant Virtual Machine, including browsers. The AFC provides a component model, similar to AWT's, featuring components, containers, and layout managers.

Two design features of the AFC are the use of lightweight classes and peerless, or windowless, components. The AFC does not directly extend the AWT Component class. The AFC designers thought that this class was too "heavy." So AFC includes its own UIComponent class that supposedly uses less memory than its AWT Component equivalent. The decision to not extend the AWT Component class affects AFC's compatibility with the AWT. See the AFC/AWT Compatibility section below.

Since AFC components do not use any native code on the system on which they are running, AFC provides a cross-platform and portable library with a common look and feel. The look and feel of an AFC application will remain the same as it is moved to different platforms. The AFC does use the AWT for base frame and dialog windows. These windows are wrappered with the AFC's compatibility classes, which are prefixed with AwtUI . AWT compatibility classes will be discussed in more detail below.

AFC supports the Win32 resource format, allowing developers to use existing Win32 resources in AFC Java applications. This support has the added benefit of providing NLS support in the manner of Win32's support.

AFC supports both the 1.0.2 and the 1.1 event models, albeit in different ways. AFC applications can only support the event model supported by the JVM they are using. However, AFC components can use either the 1.0.2 or the 1.1 event model. AFC components implement both event models internally. However, the interface is slightly different from the AWT interface. See AFC Programmability below.

JavaBeans Support
The standard AFC components such as UIPushButton, UIRadioButton, etc., are not JavaBeans. The JavaBeans support with AFC is limited to the AwtUI * compatibility classes. This means that, in order to use AFC components as JavaBeans, they must be wrappered with these compatibility classes. This limits the effectiveness of AFC applications in which JavaBean support is required.

AFC User Interface Features
AFC provides a solid set of user interface controls with which Win32 programmers will be familiar. All of the major Win32 controls are provided as part of the AFC com.ms.ui package, in addition to a few new features. With the addition of the AwtUI and UI prefixes, many of the class names will look familiar to Win32 programmers.

The UI prefix is used for standard AFC user interface classes. The AwtUI prefix is used to denote the class that is an AWT compatibility class. This is provided as a means for using an AFC control in an AWT window. More information on this subject can be found in the AFC/AWT Compatibility section. Table 1 provides a list of many of the AFC user interface controls and their AWT-compatible counterparts.

Control AFC Class Names AWT Compatibility Names
Button UIPushButton, UIRadioButton, UICheckButton AwtUIPushButton, AwtUIRadioButton, AwtUICheckButton
Choice UIChoice, UIList AwtUIChoice, AwtUIList
Menu UIMenuButton, UIMenuList, UIMenuItem AwtUIMenuList
Static UIText, UIGraphic, UIItem AwtUIText, AwtUIGraphic
Edit UIEdit AwtUIEdit
Scrollbar UIScrollBar AwtUIScrollBar
Bandbox UIBand, UIBandBox AwtUIBand, AwtUIBandBox
Status UIStatus, UIProgress AwtUIStatus, AwtUIProgress
Tree UITree AwtUITree
Viewer UIScrollViewer, UIColumnViewer, UISplitViewer, UITabViewer, UIMarquee AwtUIScrollViewer, AwtUIColumnViewer, AwtUISplitViewer, AwtUITabViewer, AwtUiMarquee
Tip   AwtUITip
Dialog Box UIPropertyPage, UIWizardStep AwtUIMessageBox, AwtUIPropertyDialog, AwtUIWizard, AwtUIFindReplaceDialog

Table 1. Many of the AFC user interface controls and their AWT-compatible counterparts.

Some AFC features of which to take note are HotTracking and BandBox. HotTracking is a feature which enables controls to change their appearance when the mouse is over them. This lets the user know when the mouse is in a position to interact with the underlying control. The appearance change in the control can be in the form of one of the following:

  • text change
  • background color change
  • image change
  • control outline change (from flat to raised)

The BandBox control is typically used to create a sizable toolbar. Sets of controls can be added to a UIBand object; then the UIBand objects can be added to the bandbox. UIBandThumb objects are then added to the bandbox, allowing the user to size and position each band.

AFC Layout Managers
The AFC adds a number of new layout managers while supporting most, but not all, of the existing AWT layout managers. There are AFC equivalents for FlowLayout, BorderLayout, and GridLayout called-not surprisingly-UIFlowLayout, UIBorderLayout, and UIGridLayout. There are no equivalents for Card and GridBag layouts. Therefore, these layouts cannot be used in an AFC container. The new layout managers added by AFC are BarLayout, FixedFlowLayout, VerticalFlowLayout, RowLayout, SplitLayout, TabLayout, TabListLayout, ThreePanelLayout, and TreeLayout.

AFC/AWT Compatibility
Since AFC does not directly extend the AWT component architecture, developers cannot freely mix AWT and AFC components in an application. In order to provide compatibility with the existing AWT, AFC employs what it calls the AWT compatibility classes. (These are the classes with the AwtUI prefix.) These classes serve as a bridge between AWT containers and AFC components. In other words, if you want to include any AFC components in AWT containers (for example, an AWT Frame) you must use the AwtUI * classes, not the standard UI * classes. I see this design as a major drawback to using AFC. See AFC Programmability below for additional details.

AFC Programmability
In preparation for writing this paper, I installed the Microsoft Visual Studio and the SDK for Java 2.0 Beta 2. I then wrote some AFC code to get a look at how the platform was put together and what it had to offer. The main problem is the fact that AFC does not extend directly from the AWT. This is a problem when trying to mix AFC and AWT components in the same container, because this mixing requires the AWT compatibility classes. This problem makes programming the AFC somewhat non-intuitive. In addition, since AFC, AWT, and AWT-compatible components cannot be easily mixed, developers need to be acutely aware of with what type of panel they are working when coding. The following lists show what is and isn't allowed when trying to mix AWT components, AFC components, and AWT compatibility components in AWT containers, AFC containers, and AWT compatibility containers.

In an AWT container (for example, Panel):

  • You can embed standard AWT components (for example, Button).
  • You cannot embed standard AFC components. For example, you cannot include a UIPushButton in an AWT container.
  • In order to embed AFC components, you need to use the AWT compatibility classes. For example, in an AWT container, you would use an AwtUIPushButton, not a UIPushButton.

In an AFC container (for example, UIPanel):

  • You can embed standard AFC components (for example, UIPushButton).
  • You cannot embed any standard AWT components (for example, Button).
  • You cannot embed any AWT compatibility components (for example, AwtUIPushButton).

In an AWT compatibility container (for example, AwtUIPanel):

  • You can embed standard AFC components (for example, UIPushButton).
  • You can embed AWT compatible components (for example, AwtUIPushButton).
  • You cannot embed any standard AWT components (for example, Button).

The major drawback here is that in order to use any AFC components in any AWT containers, one must use the AWT compatibility classes, not the standard AFC classes (See Listing 1). When using AFC containers, developers are limited to only standard AFC components and cannot use any AWT components (See Listing 2). In addition, when using an AWT Compatible container, standard AWT components cannot be included (See Listing 3).

I found myself continually going back to the documentation to see if I were using the correct class. For example, if I wanted to put a button in a container, did I need to use UIPushButton, AwtUIPushButton, or Button? Well, that depends on the type of container one is using. This made coding the AFC particularly irritating.

Listing 1: AWT Container and AWT, AFC, and AWT compatibility components

class AWTButtonDemoPanel extends Panel
{
   AWTButtonDemoPanel()
   {
      Button AWTButton = new Button("AWT button");
      AwtUIPushButton AWTUIPushButton = new AwtUIPushButton("AwtUIPushButton");
      UIPushButton AFCUIPushButton = new UIPushButton("AFCUIPushButton");

      add(AWTButton);              //OK...standard AWT component
      add(AWTUIPushButton);  //OK...AFC button used in AWT wrapper
      add(AFCUIPushButton);  
//Compile error!  Will not compile since AWT Panels don't                                       
//know anything about AFC components
  }
}

Listing 2: AFC Container and AFC, AWT compatibility, and AWT components

class AFCButtonDemoPanel extends UIPanel
{
  AFCButtonDemoPanel()
  {
    UIPushButton UIPushButton = new UIPushButton("AFC UIPushButton");
    AwtUIPushButton AWTUIPushButton = new AwtUIPushButton("AwtUIPushButton");
    Checkbox AWTCheckBox = new Checkbox("AWT Checkbox");

    add(UIPushButton);          //OK...standard AFC Component
    add(AWTUIPushButton);  
//Compile Error!  Will not compile since UIPanel does not                                             
//support the AwtUI* compatibility classes.
    add(AWTCheckBox);
//Compile error!  Will not compile since UIPanel does not
//support standard AWT components.
  }
}

Listing 3: AWT Compatible container and AFC, AWTUI*-compatible, and AWT components

class AWTCompatibleDemoPanel extends AwtUIPanel
{
  AWTCompatibleDemoPanel()
  {
    UIPushButton UIPushButton = new UIPushButton("AFC UIPushButton");
    AwtUIPushButton AWTUIPushButton = new AwtUIPushButton("AwtUIPushButton");
    Checkbox AWTCheckBox = new Checkbox("AWT Checkbox");

    add(UIPushButton);           //OK
    add(AWTUIPushButton);   //OK
    add(AWTCheckBox);
//Compiles OK! However, throws IllegalArgumentException                                                
//at runtime.  Parameter to add must be a subclass of                                                            
//AwtUIControl.
  }
}

Another cause for irritation is the event model interface in AFC. For example, instead of implementing the ActionListener interface as you would in AWT or JFC, you must implement the IUIActionListener interface. Instead of overriding the public void actionPerformed(Action event); method as you would in AWT or JFC, you override the public void actionPerformed(UIActionEvent event) method. The same holds true for the other event classes. All of the AFC event and listener classes are prefixed with UI . Another weakness is that AFC does not support the adapter classes. The adapter classes are convenience classes that the AWT employed in the 1.1 event model to make programming the new event model easier. None of this is very surprising once you understand the design of the AFC library, but it makes it annoying to program if you already know the AWT 1.1 event model.

JavaSoft Java Foundation Classes (JFC)
JavaSoft's JFC has been positioned as the main alternative to Microsoft's AFC. The battle has been escalated by the fact that Microsoft has stated that they will not ship the JFC library with their JVM. This means that for JFC applications to run on Microsoft Windows platforms, they will need a Windows JVM other than Microsoft's.

JFC was born out of Netscape's work on their IFC library. Sun, Netscape, and IBM have teamed up to produce the JFC, which will ship with JDK 1.2. When people speak of JFC, they often are referring only to the user interface components contained in JFC, commonly referred to as Swing or SwingSet. JFC contains the following:

  • High level UI components-Swing
  • 2-D Graphics
  • Drag and Drop
  • Pluggable Look and Feel
  • Accessibility Features

JFC Overview
The JFC is designed so that it is a superset of the AWT. In other words, JFC extends directly from the AWT to add many new components and services. All of the new components in JFC extend directly from the AWT Component class. This makes JFC fully compatible with AWT- based applications.

Two of the JFC design features are equivalent to the design features of AFC. The JFC uses lightweight classes and peerless, or windowless, components. Also, it does not use any native code when drawing its components. This allows JFC to provide a cross-platform and portable library with a common look and feel. Additionally, JFC provides what is called Pluggable Look and Feel, which provides the ability to change the look and feel of an application dynamically.

To run JFC applications, the JDK 1.1.2 or higher is required. Because of this, JFC supports only the 1.1 event handling model.

JavaBeans Support
All JFC components are written as JavaBeans. This gives developers of JFC applications all the benefits of JavaBeans with their JFC components.

JFC User Interface Features
JFC provides a rich set of user interface components to enhance GUI applications. All of the existing AWT components are provided, in addition to many new high-level components. To distinguish between standard AWT classes and JFC classes, all JFC classes are prefixed with a "J" . See Table 2 for a list of the new high-level components.

Tree View Slider Menus Properites
List View Styled Text Status Bar AudioGauge
Table View Font Chooser SpinBox MidiPanel
Toolbar Color Chooser ComboBox MovieController
Pane Splitter File Chooser Dropdown ComboBox AudioController
Tabbed Folder Custom Cursors ProgressBar MovieSlider
Multi-Column list Tool Tips Buttons  

Table 2. The new high-level components.

One very useful and unique feature of the JFC is the DebugGraphics option. The DebugGraphics feature is a tool you can use to test whether your components are being drawn correctly. With DebugGraphics, you can highlight the component parts in bright red as they are being drawn. This allows you to view them as they are being drawn and to observe exactly how all drawing operations are taking place.

Another major user interface feature of JFC is Pluggable Look and Feel, which provides the ability to change the user interface of a set of components (for example, all buttons) or the entire application dynamically at run time. To support this feature, JFC application developers do not need to subclass the entire JFC component set.

JFC Programmability
I downloaded the 1.1.3 version of the JDK and the JFC code from the JavaSoft Web site and started to program with it. I used my AWT skills to begin programming in JFC immediately. Working with existing AWT classes in the JFC was a snap. You simply need to prefix the class name with a "J" . So, if you want a JFC button, you code JButton. If you want an AWT button, you simply code Button. You also don't have to worry about mixing JFC and AWT components and containers. They all work together seamlessly, making it easy to mix JFC and AWT code.

JFC Layout Managers
JFC supports all of the existing AWT layout managers and also adds a new one. The new layout manager is called SpringLayout. The SpringLayout allows you to define which spaces should change size when a component is sized. The defined spaces are: left margin, right margin, top margin, bottom margin, width, and height. Each of these spaces can either be a spring or a strut. A spring is a flexible space and can grow during sizing. A strut is an inflexible space and, whenever possible, it does not change size.

JFC/AWT Compatibility
JFC was designed to be fully compatible with the AWT. Therefore, you do not need to concern yourself with mixing separate Component models. This compatibility will be critical as people begin to use new JFC applications with existing AWT code.

AFC/JFC Performance Comparison
To compare the performance, I first wrote an application using JFC (see Appendix A). This application allows you to create a frame window with a panel containing a user-specified number of buttons. The application measures three aspects of performance:

  • creation time of the frame with the buttons
  • layout time of the buttons
  • paint time of the buttons

Once I had the application working properly under JFC, I block-copied the code into Microsoft Visual Studio and converted it to be run with AFC (see Appendix B). This conversion was very simple and straightforward. The design of the application did not have to change-only the class names being used were changed. When I got a clean compile, the AFC program worked properly the first time. I then had identical applications for both JFC and AFC with which to run my tests.

Both programs employed identical designs. I overrode the paintAll() and layout() methods to capture the paint and layout timings (in the JFC code, I actually overrode doLayout() since layout() was deprecated for 1.1). The code was compiled and run with the following setup for JFC:

  • JDK 1.1.3
  • JFC Swing 0.3 developers' preview release

For AFC:

  • Microsoft Visual Studio
  • SDK for Java 2.0 Beta 2

Before I actually looked at the numbers, I noticed that JFC seemed to be much faster than AFC. The performance numbers supported this observation. See Table 3 for the actual numbers. All times were gathered using the System.currentTimeMillis() call. I ran the creation time scenario numbers, creating 100 and 500 buttons. The layout and paint times were both done only for 100 buttons. The numbers are an average of five samples I took for each test.

All of the performance measurements were generated on an unloaded 133MHz Pentium processor machine with 80MB of memory running Window NT 4.0. In addition, each application was built with the -O option indicating full optimization of the code.

Activity AFC average time in milliseconds JFC average time in milliseconds
Create 100 Buttons 1,692 592.6
Create 500 Buttons 6,895.8 3,072.8
Layout 326.4 96.2
Paint 478.8 382.4

Table 3. AFC performance versus JFC performance.

As you can see, JFC easily outperformed AFC in each category-and by a wide margin. More specifically, JFC performed 185% faster creating 100 buttons, 124% faster creating 500 buttons, 239% faster during layout, and 25% faster painting the buttons.

Both libraries exhibited painting problems and unnecessary multiple paints and layouts, but I would not expect much more from Beta code. Improvements will be made to both libraries as time goes by, but JFC has a clear performance advantage, which AFC will have to work very hard to match, let alone eliminate.

AFC/JFC Feature Comparison
Table 3 is a list of the major differentiating features between AFC and JFC. I have indicated the feature and noted the support each library gives the feature. I have then indicated (in bold CAPS), where appropriate, which library has a better implementation and, therefore, a competitive advantage based on the implementation of the feature.

Feature AFC JFC
100% Pure Java Yes Yes
Pluggable L&F No YES
Peerless Components Yes Yes
Lightweight Comp Yes YES
JavaBeans support Limited FULL
1.0 Event Model YES No
1.1 Event Model Yes YES
Drag/Drop No YES
Printing No YES
Win32 Resource files YES No
2D Graphics Yes Yes
AWT Compatibility Limited EXCELLENT
Programmability Fair EXCELLENT
Performance Poor GOOD

Table 3. Comparison of AFC and JFC features.

And the Winner Is....
Based on the facts uncovered during my examination of these two class libraries, JFC is the clear winner. JFC is better designed, has more features, and is easier to use than AFC. Each one has a few features the other does not, but AFC lacks the more important features that JFC provides. Strong AWT compatibility, Drag/Drop, and Printing are three features AFC does not have and needs in order to be considered a serious contender.

In areas in which they both provide the same feature, the JFC implementation and support are typically much better than AFC. For example, JFC does a much better job with JavaBeans, general programmability, and the 1.1 event model. In addition, the performance of the JFC was far superior to AFC, giving the JFC a big edge in this important category.

JFC is a more solid foundation on which build Java applications. It was clear in using JFC that the designers intended little to no impact on current AWT programmers moving to the JFC.

Appendix A

//JFC Performance measurement application
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import com.sun.java.swing.*;
class JFCButtonFrame extends Frame implements ActionListener
{
  private JButton repaintButton; 
  public JFCButtonFrame(JFCPerfFrame perfFrame, int numButtons)
  {
    setTitle("JFC Button Panel");
    setLayout(new BorderLayout());
    JFCButtonPanel buttonPanel = new JFCButtonPanel(perfFrame, numButtons);
    add(buttonPanel, "Center");
   JPanel timePanel = new JPanel();
    repaintButton = new JButton("Repaint");
    repaintButton.addActionListener(this);
    timePanel.add(repaintButton);
    add(timePanel, "South");
    
    class JFCButtonFrameAdapter extends WindowAdapter
    {
      public void windowClosing(WindowEvent event) 
      {
        dispose();
      }  
    }
    addWindowListener(new JFCButtonFrameAdapter());
  }
  public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event)
  {
    if (event.getSource() == repaintButton)
    {
      paintComponents(getGraphics());
    }
  }
}
class JFCButtonPanel extends JPanel
{
  private JFCPerfFrame perfFrame;
  public JFCButtonPanel(JFCPerfFrame f, int numButtons)
  {
    perfFrame = f;
    setLayout(new FlowLayout());
    for (int i=0; i

Appendix B

//AFC Performace measurement application
import com.ms.ui.*;
import com.ms.fx.*;
import com.ms.ui.event.*;
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
class AFCButtonFrame extends AwtUIFrame implements IUIActionListener
{
  private UIPushButton repaintButton; 
  public AFCButtonFrame(AFCPerfFrame perfFrame, int numButtons)
  {
    setTitle("AFC Button Panel");
    setLayout(new UIBorderLayout());
    AFCButtonPanel buttonPanel = new AFCButtonPanel(perfFrame, numButtons);
    add(buttonPanel, "Center");
    UIPanel timePanel = new UIPanel();
    repaintButton = new UIPushButton("Repaint", UIPushButton.RAISED);
    repaintButton.addActionListener(this);
    timePanel.add(repaintButton);
    add(timePanel, "South");
  }
  public void actionPerformed(UIActionEvent event) 
  {
    if (event.getSource() == repaintButton)
    {
      paintComponents(getGraphics());
    }
  }
  public boolean handleEvent(Event evt)
  {
    switch (evt.id)
    {
      case Event.WINDOW_DESTROY:
        dispose();
        return true;
      default:
        return super.handleEvent(evt);
    }
  }
}
class AFCButtonPanel extends UIPanel
{
  private AFCPerfFrame perfFrame;
  public AFCButtonPanel(AFCPerfFrame f, int numButtons)
  {
    perfFrame = f;
    setLayout(new UIFlowLayout());
    for (int i=0; i

About the author
Peter Haggar is an Advisory Software Engineer with IBM in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Mr. Haggar has worked for IBM since 1987 and has been working with graphical user interface design and implementation since 1989 and object-oriented development and technology since 1991. For the past 8 years, Mr. Haggar has worked on multiple OO and GUI development projects. For the past 4 years, he worked on the IBM OpenClass C++ class libraries for the VisualAge for C++ product. Before that, he worked on many GUI controls for OS/2. Currently, Mr. Haggar works in the Java Technology and Strategy group and has shared responsibility for the IBM Java technical strategy. In addition, Mr. Haggar is a working member of the client Java Design Council, focusing on client technology and strategy. Mr. Haggar received a B.S. in Computer Science from Clarkson University in New York in 1987.


e-mail it!
What do you think of this article?
Killer! (5) Good stuff (4) So-so; not bad (3) Needs work (2) Lame! (1)

Comments?


  About IBM  |  Privacy  |  Legal  |  Contact