Thanks Josh, I understand now cheers, Mark
On Jul 24, 12:13 pm, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > The javafxc compiler compiles JavaFX Script code into JVM byte code, > just like Java or any other language. The JavaFX runtime is a bunch of > libraries which are loaded on demand using the usual JRE mechanisms > (applet classpath, JNLP classloaders, etc.). > > - Josh > > On Jul 23, 2009, at 7:10 PM, markmac wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks all for the replies, now I can give strait answers to my > > colleagues! > > > Although, for my own interest, how does the JVM and the JavaFX runtime > > interact? > > > (Again, I know this sounds like a super high level question, but Im > > slowly learning more and more about the lower level stuff, and it > > really interests me.) > > > Is the bytecode that is generated just told to "go get the codecs from > > the JavaFX runtime", if so, wouldn't that be a compiler > > implementation? > > > Cheers, > > Mark > > > On Jul 24, 1:22 am, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Fabrizio is correct. Technically JavaFX code will run on any Java 1.5 > >> runtime. We use 1.5 bytecode and the internal usage of 1.6 api will > >> correctly degrade. However, the user experience is vastly better on > >> recent versions of 1.6, so we encourage it's use. I believe (though I > >> haven't checked lately), that the dtfx.js javascript which generates > >> the applet tags will require you to upgrade from anything lower than > >> 6u7 if you are on Windows. I suspect there will be a day when we > >> drop > >> 1.5 altogether and go 1.6 only, since 1.6 itself is several years old > >> at this point. > > >> - Josh > > >> On Jul 23, 2009, at 5:05 AM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote: > > >>> Steven Herod wrote: > >>>> It doesn't require 6u10. It'll run on any version of Java 1.5 or > >>>> higher. Infact Netbeans JavaFX support is 'hardcoded' to use Java > >>>> 1.5. > > >>>> The big difference is user experience, as 6u10 introduced the new > >>>> browser plugin which offered faster startup and the ability to drag > >>>> applets out of the browser. > > >>>> I also think it included the JavaFX runtime in the distribution, > >>>> if I > >>>> recall correctly, which means that 6u10 users didn't need to wait > >>>> for > >>>> the JavaFX runtime to be downloaded on first JavaFX app startup. > > >>>> I don't think this JavaFX + JRE bundling has included, I don't > >>>> recall > >>>> a new JRE coming out when JavaFX 1.2 came out. > > >>>> Certainly there is no dependancy between releases of the two. > > >>> AFAIK this is not entirely correct. If you look at the official > >>> system > >>> requirements: > > >>>http://java.sun.com/javafx/1/reference/system-requirements-1-2.html#j > >>> ... > > >>> the current minimal JDK version for running JavaFX 1.2 is 6u13 (for > >>> Windows, Linux, OpenSolaris), and 1.5.0_16 for Mac OS X. Beyond what > >>> you > >>> said about 6u10, which is correct, you also have to consider bugs > >>> and > >>> enhancements made in the Java2D core for fitting JavaFX, that > >>> require > >>> these minimal requirements. The reason for which JavaFX "tolerates" > >>> Java > >>> 5 on the Mac is because, thanks to the wonderful and friendly > >>> Apple's > >>> policy about Java, it is still not possible (and I don't think it > >>> will > >>> be ever possible) to run Java 6 on PPC and Intel 32 machines (and > >>> there > >>> is still a big deal around). I suppose there are some specific > >>> workarounds for Java 5 in this case (and possibly some penalties), > >>> but > >>> it has been a good move to avoid killing a good number of client > >>> platform. I have no doubts that if Apple supported Java 6 on all of > >>> his > >>> reasonably recent machinery, Sun would have required Java 6 > >>> everywhere. > > >>> -- > >>> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > >>> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > >>> weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/blog > >>> [email protected] - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
