You can run windows on your mac hardware if push comes to shove. If you're using eclipse there's no issue at all (eclipse runs on SWT on top of OpenJDK flawlessly, you can't tell the difference until you start debugging / running a swing app from within eclipse, at which point X11 starts and you get a somewhat ugly motif-styled window that doesn't really fit the apple GUI. But even that app at least works).
If you're on IntelliJ, NetBeans, or some other swing-based tool, you'll get an X11 window. These aren't too smooth, but with a little TLC (as in, one guy tweaking a few things for a week or two), I'm confident these can be brought up to 90% of their former glories. And that's all presuming no Oracle or community-driven cocoa port of swing is forthcoming. On Nov 8, 9:39 pm, David Orriss Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > I think what this honestly boils down to is that Jobs saw value in > Java years ago and sees far less value in it now, at least as a > Desktop development technology. > > My frustration is now what do all of use who found Java on Mac an > outstanding development experience for our server-side development do > next? I was going to drop 30k in Apple hardware for running a bunch > of my development systems and my director and VP are far less inclined > to make that purchase now (and I don't blame them). > > FWIW I agree... JG's comments are all speculative. The only ones who > know what's next are Oracle and Apple. And neither seem to be talking > much. > > On Nov 8, 11:02 am, "Joe Nuxoll (Java Posse)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, Chris - I think I was trying to make this point. I think the > > "secret" APIs argument is a red herring of speculation by JG. > > > - Joe > > > On Nov 8, 10:36 am, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just listening to #329 and I think undue attention is paid to OSX > > > "secret APIs" in the context of a hypothetical community port of a Mac > > > JDK. > > > > Gosling's > > > bloghttp://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/steve_jobs_comments_on_apple > > > complains about secret APIs in graphics rendering, but then goes on to > > > say (as Tor points out in this episode) that Java on the Mac uses the > > > default Java graphics pipeline, meaning that any platform-specific > > > graphics rendering abilities, secret or not, are off the table > > > anyways. This is what Gosling is complaining about in the third graf: > > > Oracle's insistence that Apple abandon its anti-aliased rendering > > > pipeline, and stay pixel-for-pixel compatible with aliased Windows XP. > > > > Secondly, in the context of #329's discussion, it's not clear why > > > secret APIs are even relevant. The things that an AWT/Swing port > > > needs to provide are a known problem, and it is known that these > > > things can all be done with public APIs. After all, SWT does them > > > all, and is far more entangled with native widgets than Swing/AWT. > > > And since SWT is open source, it should be straightforward to go see > > > how they did it. So, I don't buy that secret APIs are necessary for a > > > SwingAWT port. > > > > Frankly, I don't think there's a hidden empire of wonderful secret > > > APIs in Mac OS X. If there are, then I'd like to know why iTunes is > > > still such a goddamn train-wreck. As most people acknowledge, many > > > secret APIs are hacks and kludges that haven't had adequate review and > > > aren't fit for third-party use. Also for those secret APIs that are > > > found through various means (method swizzing, memory inspection, > > > etc.), there's no technical reason on OS X that you can't call them -- > > > look at the Ars article that Gosling cites and you'll see that the > > > problem isn't that Mozilla can't see the secret function that WebKit > > > uses (they know it's called WKDisableCGDeferredUpdates), but that the > > > licensing implications of calling it are unclear. Big difference, > > > though still a blocker for Mozilla. > > > > One unrelated thing I thought of while mentally composing this note. > > > The Mac has two viable graphics APIs: Quartz (aka, Core Graphics), and > > > OpenGL. Quartz is implemented in OpenGL, which provides hardware- > > > acceleration for all system graphics (yay). So a port of Java2D would > > > presumably want to use Quartz. But then I wondered: has anyone > > > implemented Java2D in OpenGL? I thought there was a project doing > > > this years ago, but I couldn't remember. If so, then it might be > > > worth investigating if it would be practical for a hypothetical port > > > to use that for its Java2D implementation, using NSOpenGLViews all > > > over the place and then drawing Java2D->OpenGL into them. > > > > --Chris -- 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.
