On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:14:25 +0100, Derek <[email protected]> wrote:
It really does make much more sense to have a JVM build into the browser but failing that why not simply emulate the JVM in JavaScript which is built into every browser. This is just another aspect of the steady conversion of features provided by plugins to JavaScript implementations - codecs, pdf, zipping and so on.
Well, definitely it makes some sense. I'm not worried by the speed, because I understand it can be interesting; the real problem is how much traction the project will have and so how many things it will support. For instance, just manipulating the DOM in Java doesn't make a lot of sense. It would make sense to run JavaFX, for instance, but this - in addition to the bytecode translation - would require mapping graphics to HTML 5, etc... which is a project per se. BTW, if I don't recall bad, once upon a time a JavaFX to JavaScript translation was in the plans of Sun... but I lost track of it.
-- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." [email protected] http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it -- 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.
