On 22 Sep, 13:33, Steven Herod <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Closures and function pointers help in so much that you don't have to
> > create Interfaces and statically typed Events to create custom
> > callbacks, but that alone doesn't make a productive toolkit.
>
> Closures are backed in to Java FX.
>
> > Also the discussion that inheritance is the wrong and composition
> > should be favored is a red herring as well. Flex and Flash are
> > inheritance heavy. Very deep component hierarchies so that's not it
> > either. Composition IS important, but it's not the driver of their
> > success as a toolkit. Even in Flex there are times where you have to
> > subclass. In fact every time you create a MXML file it subclasses
> > your top level Component you defined in the XML. Very Swing-esque.
>
> JavaFX supports composition via Mixin's and traditional inheritence.
>
==////==
>
> Interesting to hear that they are moving away from CSS. JavaFX offers
> CSS skinning and an option to provide your own Skin{} class which can
> provide a custom rendering option for something like a button or a
> list view.
Interesting when the web designer are eefffing and blinding that CSS3
is lacking in IE8 and the pertual lock-in to support IE6
>
> I don't find it particularly well described in the docs, but it seems
> powerful.
>
> > Finally Flex data structures work with their UI toolkits out of the
> > box. Why don't we have a ListModel that implements the List interface
> > yet? Why do Swing models suck so hard that you are constantly
> > reinventing them for every project? Flex got it right where
> > ArrayCollection and ICollection just work. JavaFX must be better in
> > this area.
>
> There aren't enough complex controls in JavaFX to know how this is
> going to be handled. Josh? :)
I bet this has to do with JavaFX Reflection capabilities.
>
> > I will be positive about JavaFX's future in that. Actionscript, while
> > a nice language, is alone. It's only in the Flash platform, and it's
> > not as well thought out as Java. You can't load native code, you
> > can't easily interact with existing pieces of code. You can't share
> > code between UI and server. Actionscript is only for Flash. You
> > can't redistribute the flash platform. So I have to implement
> > algorithms at least twice, and if I go mobile more than that.
>
> Absolutely, and that's when Flex I think, might be screwed in many
> regards, inside that walled garden you can do things, but ....
> well.... you know.
>
==////==
>
> From what I've seen over the past 10 months of working with JavaFX is
> that
>
> 1. It was initially quite immature
> 2. It's rapidly improving
> 3. The guys at Sun seem to 'get' it, and are working their butts off
> to make it work.
We are waiting for the brand new PRISM scenegraph architecture, if it
is still called that.
> 4. Version 1.3 might be the tipping point for 'real' apps - both with
> controls and performance
> 5. Java 7 (JDK 1.7), Jigsaw (whatever you wanna call it) might be the
> thing that gets it to the Flash level startup times. <- That
> statement is a statement of pure faith and hope.
Let's see what Mark Rheinhold has to say at this year's Devoxx
conference. The initially demos with Ubuntu and the ClassPath less
execution were rather good, I though in June.
BTW: Any one know his jumper size? (Sweater). I think maybe he needs a
brand new one.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
