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

List:       openjdk-openjfx-dev
Subject:    Re: OpenJFX initiative
From:       Michael Paus <mp () jugs ! org>
Date:       2017-09-24 15:11:41
Message-ID: 22933eb9-b24d-f26b-9bd6-b76ee8823dbc () jugs ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Am 23.09.17 um 16:14 schrieb Mark Fortner:
> I must have missed the bit where you described a proposed roadmap.
Me too.
>
> I think for the most part I've seen JavaFX used as a means of keeping older
> Swing-based projects alive. In the enterprise, those projects are
> dwindling, in part because people just rebuild them as web applications.
> It's easier to find that kind of talent, than it is to find desktop
> developers.
>
> The applications that remain desktop applications tend to require either
> access to your desktop OS, or need near realtime access to streams of
> audio, video, telemetry or financial data, which makes them ill-suited to
> be web apps.
>
> The reason that there's little interest in WebGL or 3d is because it
> doesn't fit into one of the enterprise app buckets listed above.
I think there is a big misunderstanding here. At least for me the main 
reason
for asking for WebGL/OpenGL support is not an interest in fancy 3D 
animations
or such. For me it is just a matter of performance. Many modern web pages
heavily use WebGL for truly hardware accelerated 2D graphics. Just compare
the performance of the JavaFX WebView with the performance of any other
browser on the same machine when you display Google maps for example.
In WebView you end up in some castrated "light mode" with a bad user
experience just because WebView does not support WebGL.
>
> I'm still surprised when people tell me that they have to write mobile apps
> in Java and Swift and maintain two codebases, and when I point them to
> JavaFX they admit they've never heard of it.
>
> There needs to be better promotion of JavaFX in the Java developer
> community. People need to compare the degree of complexity of web component
> and PWA development against JavaFX to see the advantages. And there needs
> to be a better deployment story than web start.
Definitely yes. But the community also has to realize the importance of 
a proper
system integration of programs written in JavaFX. For example it is 
still not
possible to get a proper system menu bar in JavaFX on the Mac. You have to
resort to external libraries for this like this: 
https://github.com/codecentric/NSMenuFX

People also expect to get software in a certain system specific way they 
are used to (installers etc.).
Now what does JavaFX do? The latest and greatest and long awaited Java 9 
is delivered with
a broken packager for the Mac although this regression has been known 
for many months.
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179033
I can't package my app anymore for distribution which is quite 
frustrating when you have spent
a lot of time to overcome the other Java 9 hurdles.
>
> A lot of that is simply promotion. It means reaching out to web development
> and mobile development communities, and giving talks and demos.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2017 5:32 p.m., "John-Val Rose" <johnvalrose@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Probably, but JEPs can take a lot of time from start to finish and time is
> itself perhaps the biggest enemy that JavaFX is facing.
>
> And how many JEPs are being initiated by the Oracle JavaFX team
> themselves?  I mean for the specific purpose of *true* innovation?
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 10:24, Nir Lisker <nlisker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't have any answer to those questions. A JEP is the only thing I can
>> think of.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has
>>> demonstrated.
>>>
>>> But, I think it's a bit of an over simplification.
>>>
>>> How do I know if *my* innovation (of say 9 months of effort) is
> "high-quality
>>> code that makes OpenJFX better"?
>>>
>>> I can do my best to write high-quality code but what exactly does "make
>>> OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
>>> 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
>>> such functionality.
>>>
>>> Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
>>> *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
>>> OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
>>>
>>> ​​
>>> Graciously,
>>>
>>> John-Val Rose
>>> Chief Scientist/Architect
>>> Rosethorn Technology
>>> Australia
>>>
>>> On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker <nlisker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "go with Johan Vos's experience"?
>>>> What he said here: http://mail.openjdk.java
>>>> .net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2017-September/020801.html.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:08 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The concept of "innovation" no longer seems to apply to JavaFX, at
>>>>> least not from Oracle's perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you read the official list of changes in the just-released Java 9,
>>>>> AWT (yes, AWT) has more changes than JavaFX and even then the only
>>>>> significant change is to make it Jigsaw compatible.
>>>>>
>>>>> A product like this needs a very clear "roadmap" of development and
>>>>> introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
>>>>> Documentation page for "roadmap" leads to a place known as "404". I
> hope
>>>>> that's not a room number in "Hotel California".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but
>>>>> is very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
>>>>> "float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is".
> Note,
>>>>> that "interest" is only from the community itself... and then what?
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "go with Johan Vos's experience"? Yes, he and Gluon
>>>>> are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch
> talent
>>>>> and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
>>>>> frequency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
>>>>> Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with
> them
>>>>> and access to knowledge that others don't. Personally, I love what he's
>>>>> doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we
>>>>> get large-scale changes to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't know. But we're better as a team than a bunch of
>>>>> individuals each trying to get some feature implemented in an
> uncoordinated
>>>>> fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own
>>>>> perspective on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the
>>>>> community ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in
>>>>> general.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be happy to be that person but sadly, it's not for me to make that
>>>>> call. Johan is like the de facto "Head of Innovation for JavaFX" at the
>>>>> moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and
> monetises
>>>>> his efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what businesses do.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now*
>>>>> (even this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we
> coalesce
>>>>> everyone's own ideas) so we can move forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to "move forward"
>>>>> rather than "sideways".
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly though, if you're not moving forward, you are really going
>>>>> backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the
> horizon...
>>>>> Graciously,
>>>>>
>>>>> John-Val Rose
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker <nlisker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't see any update on the idea for our initiative. Are we still
>>>>> waiting for a reply from Oracle or do we go with Johan Vos's
> experience?
>>>>>> I think that the least we can do without putting any work into this
>>>>> is have a semi-formal list of people who would like to work on this
> and a
>>>>> list of what features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't
>>>>> know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.
>>>>>
>>>>

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