[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: 8u40 is released
From:       Felix Bembrick <felix.bembrick () gmail ! com>
Date:       2015-03-24 20:26:55
Message-ID: CAOQavC99Mr7v11X8W5HTwoT6oH2DMOad8OdWDjMDM976PWYOsg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

That would all be wonderful Mark if JavaFX was in fact viable on iOS and
Android which, right at the moment, it isn't.

Gluon and RoboVM are doing their best to make this happen but, in my
opinion, they are about 100 developers and $50M short of being able to make
something that's really going to change the world.

I may be wrong - the guys involved are true Java legends and geniuses - but
they lack resources and I am not sure where those resources are going to
appear from.

Felix


On 25 March 2015 at 06:19, Mark Fortner <phidias51@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the real "killer app" with JavaFX is the fact that you can maintain
> a single codebase that runs on iOS, Android, and every desktop you can
> think of without doubling or tripling development and maintenance costs.
> SceneBuilder means that graphic designers and UX gurus can play an integral
> role in the development process without creating "throwaway artifacts".
> They can leverage their CSS, and graphic design skills, to make a truly
> rich user experience, that developers can build upon.  No more wireframes
> or comps that you can't build on.
>
> You don't have to deal with the headaches, and additional costs that come
> with having to maintain multiple code bases. When I show some of the
> YouTube videos of JavaFX in action on mobile platforms, and then show
> SceneBuilder, people are floored.
>
> Currently mobile developers are banging their heads dealing with mobile
> web, hybrid and native application stacks, and all of the headaches that
> those environments engender.  Different IDEs, different languages,
> maintaining the LnF and branding across those platforms, maintaining the
> functionality across those platforms, that when they see something like
> JavaFX, you can see the interest in moving to a simpler development stack.
>
> Why Oracle isn't marketing the hell out of this, I don't know.  But they're
> missing a real opportunity to take back the mobile mindshare they've lost.
> JavaONE can't be the only venue where you talk about this.  This should be
> talked up and demonstrated at every mobile developer conference that you
> can think of.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Johan Vos <johan@lodgon.com> wrote:
>
> > I think it is really important to make a clear distinction between Oracle
> > as a (database/middleware) company and Oracle as the Java Steward.
> >
> > As a Java Steward, Oracle is dedicated to the future of Java, which
> > includes JavaFX. The Oracle engineers contribute most of the code and
> > provide excellent support and communication to the community.
> >
> > As a company, Oracle can decide that e.g. a commercially supported
> > SceneBuilder, or JavaFX on embedded, or whatever... is not in line with
> > their business goals. However, this does not mean that the technology is
> > not good or has no chance in another business constellation. I am not in
> > the business of selling cars, but that does not mean I don't believe in
> the
> > car industry.
> >
> > Personally, I think that both SceneBuilder and JavaFX on Pi could lead to
> > more revenue on the backend, but if Oracle doesn't see it this way, hey
> > it's their business decision :)
> >
> > Good enough, they take their job as a Java Steward serious, and that
> shows
> > by the many great features that have been added in JavaFX 8u40.
> >
> > - Johan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2015-03-04 23:18 GMT+01:00 Tobias Bley <tobi@ultramixer.com>:
> >
> > > In the past there were 2 bad signs from Oracle concerning JavaFX: end
> of
> > > support for JavaFX on RaspPi and SceneBuilder...
> > >
> > > So does have JavaFX a future?
> > >
> > > Tobi
> > >
> > >
> > > > Am 04.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>:
> > > >
> > > > That's great Johan, but ...... what does this mean, exactly? Is SB
> > > > effectively dead at this point? Short of some horrifically convoluted
> > > > corporate politics I can't understand why Oracle would develop an
> > > > application but not provide downloads of it. Does this mean SB won't
> be
> > > > upgraded past 8u40?
> > > >
> > > > I mean - I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be surprised by
> this,
> > > and
> > > > I thought I followed JFX development pretty closely. What's the story
> > > here?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Johan Vos <johan@lodgon.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Oracle stated that they won't release new binaries for SceneBuilder,
> > but
> > > >> since the code is open-source and BSD licensed, third parties and
> the
> > > Java
> > > >> Community in general can create binaries based on the SceneBuilder
> > > sources.
> > > >> This is what we did at Gluon (http://gluonhq.com), and the result
> can
> > > be
> > > >> downloaded at http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/
> > > >> This download is based on the latest 8u40 source code in OpenJFX. It
> > > >> includes the 8u40 Controls (e.g. Spinner, Dialogs).
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope this is helpful.
> > > >>
> > > >> - Johan
> > > >>
> > > >> 2015-03-04 16:31 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Kevin,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under
> the
> > > BSD
> > > >>>> license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of
> > > 8u40.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm a bit confused what this means.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> People who want to use Scene Builder are expected to compile it
> > > themselves
> > > >>> from now on? Does that really make sense? Presumably the idea here
> is
> > > that
> > > >>> SB will be integrated into IDEs and will no longer have any purpose
> > as
> > > a
> > > >>> standalone app, but I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet - the
> > last
> > > >>> time I tried the SB integration into IntelliJ it was extremely
> basic
> > > and
> > > >>> far below the experience of the dedicated app.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As just one example, UI design benefits a lot from maximal screen
> > > space.
> > > >>> IDE embeddings often don't provide that.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]