On Jul 27, 12:15 pm, TorNorbye <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 26, 6:59 am, Chas Emerick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > JavaFX isn't just another layer on top of AWT; for example on mobile > there is no AWT in the stack, and I think it's public knowledge that > we are building some alternate graphics stacks below FX.
Many apologies. I only keep up with JavaFX happenings from a distance, so the nuance sometimes gets away from me. That said, maybe it's more appropriate to say that JavaFX *on the desktop* is just another layer on AWT? And it probably won't come as a shock that we're entirely uninterested in mobile platforms. ...but, "building some alternate graphics stacks below FX"? There's that sinking feeling again, knowing that so much is going into tech that we'll never have any use for, and that less and less is going into anything we'll see any benefit from (being users of NB RCP, Swing, AWT, processing.org, etc). - 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
