I agree. There are still improvements to make. Also I think some more best practices docs would be good. Overall, as a tool, I've been happy with it. It makes me far more productive.
- Josh, on the go On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Bill Robertson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I saw it in action at the JPR. We fiddled with an interface for hours > and > came up with things that worked. It was a learning experience, so it > should be no surprise that it was a god-awful, but that's not the > point. > Even if we weren't learners, it would have taken a fair amount of > time > to code the interface. > > Later in the day somebody put one together in photoshop. It took us a > little > time to figure out how to work with it (a one time only penalty for a > given > developer I'm sure), then we had it running in very short order. And > it was gorgeous. > > So from a long-time developer's perspective, it was fan-frakkin- > tastic. > We got there faster, and I believe that the end result was better. A > text > editor is a great hammer, but there are better tools to make user > interfaces with. (tangent: A couple of weeks ago I showed Matisse > to somebody who was doing swing layouts with gridbag in notepad -- > they > were a happy camper to say the least). > > I still reserve the right to say that you might have to make code > changes > if the UI changes. It seems to me that there are plenty of tweaks > that > wouldn't require it, but it seems equally likely that they could > change things > that may break assumptions you have made about the fxd content in your > code. I don't know the full power of the new (or old) project Nile > bits, so > maybe there are tricks to help minimize this. > > Thanks! > > On Jun 18, 3:40 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> have you tried the current production suite? it does this already >> today. you just don't get the nice visual assembler. you can take >> photoshop graphics and directly export them to fx, add some code, >> make >> changes in photoshop, recompile and it works without any code >> changes. >> >> On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Bill Robertson wrote: >> >> >> >>> The Adobe plug-ins allow the designer's Photoshop and/or Illustrator >>> work to be artifacts that you consume in the development process >>> of a >>> JavaFX application. So there is no translation process of what it >>> looks like in photoshop to JavaFx. This can be a huge time saver, >>> especially when there are multiple revisions involved. It won't >>> read >>> your mind or remove all work you have to do, but it can still be a >>> huge help. >> >>> On Jun 18, 2:22 pm, Erlend Hamnaberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I am still a person that don't "get" JavaFX yet. >> >>>> Why do I want to care that you have any features in Photoshop? >>>> I work with designers, and their designs are ALWAYS a guideline. >> >>>> No designer has the final word about what works technically anyway, >>>> so why >>>> do I care? >>>> A usability expert might, but that is not the same as the >>>> designer.... >> >>>> - Erlend >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Rob Wilson - BabyDuke JUG < >> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> So is the intention to install that for all the graphic >>>>> manipulations >>>>> and then export as necessary, then switch to Netbeans with the >>>>> JavaFX >>>>> plugin to do the coding? Will the Java FX Studio be instead of >>>>> photoshop, or complementary? I'm not sure I understand what I >>>>> would >>>>> need to develop in JavaFX yet?! >> >>>>> On Jun 18, 5:48 am, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> :) the product doesn't have a final name yet, so we are just >>>>>> calling >>>>>> it the designer tool because it's targeted at designers. >>>>>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Victor Grazi wrote: >> >>>>>>> Ooh that name hurts my ears >> >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Augusto >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> None that anybody is aware of. >> >>>>>>>> BTW it's not called "Java FX Studio" although that name is a >>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>> better than the generic public moniker it has right now : >>>>>>>> JavaFX >>>>>>>> Authoring Tool/JavaFX Design Tool. >> >>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:01 pm, Victor Grazi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> No alphas or betas? >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 12:24 PM, "wojciech.halicki.piszko" >>>>>>>>> <[email protected] >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> If you are talking about JavaFX design tool showed on stage >>>>>>>>>> at Java >>>>>>>>>> One then it will be available by the end of year. Hopefully. >> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 9:01 am, Victor Grazi <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, is there any way to download a beta of Java FX >>>>>>>>>>> studio? >>>>>>>>>>> Much >>>>>>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Victor > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
