lol Are you asking Mikael Grev whether he has looked into MigLayout, or am I just reading this wrong?
On 27 Jul., 18:08, Joshua Marinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you looked into MigLayout? It's pretty sweet. > On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Mikael Grev wrote: > > > > > The only sensible thing they can do for JavaFX is to add: > > > 1) One kick-ass designer that is better than Matisse > > 2) One kick-ass manual layout manager > > 3) An easy and predictable way to move back and forth between 1 and 2. > > > Cheers, > > Mikael Grev > > > On Jul 27, 1:29 pm, Jess Holle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
