I think JavaFX could and probably should speak to the requirements and use cases currently addressed by Swing.
I'd agree that it currently doesn't, however -- it does not provide enough components, no layout appropriate for complex forms, nor a GUI layout tool oriented at complex layout of components rather than working with designer assets. Chas Emerick wrote: > On Jul 24, 12:22 pm, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matisse is obviously a bit of an evolutionary dead- >> end now with JavaFX in the picture, but I appreciate environments that >> give me this kind of GUI constructor kit (like FlexBuilder for >> example) and get me back to the stuff that I am really interested in >> writing. >> > > I suppose I'll be the one to say it -- JavaFX doesn't speak at all to > our requirements or use-cases, while Swing did and does. Given that, > Matisse remains part of our core toolset, and none of the murmurings > around the JavaFX "designer tool" have given me any hope that that > will change anytime soon. > > I'm certain I'm not the only one with that perspective, so I'd hope > that we could stay away from stuff like saying Matisse/Swing/et al. > are 'evolutionary dead-ends'. UI is all about getting pixels on the > screen in the way that will achieve the customers' goals -- nothing > more, nothing less -- and given that JavaFX is just another layer on > top of AWT, I think everyone would be better served by not thinking > about the former as some wholly-new revolutionary technology. > > Cheers, > > - Chas > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
