I totally agree. I have always expected Google to move away from everything Java or Java-related after the Oracle court case and several industry pundits are expecting the same thing. GWT will become Dart based (if they retain it at all) and I wouldn't be surprised to see C or C++ become the language for Android.
Relying on an Android implementation of Java classes as the basis of a JavaFX port to mobile platforms is definitely a dead end. On 07/07/2013, at 22:35, Herve Girod <herve.gi...@gmail.com> wrote: > IMO relying on the Android API is not the way to go on the long run. > > The current Android "Java" API is already trailing behind Java 7, and it's > heavily dependent on Google's good will, who is the only one who can decide > on how this API will evolve. If they decide one day to change completely > the API, or get rid of their Java VM, or deprecate it and don't support it > anymore (like Microsoft did for many of their libraries), they can. > > Another reason is that Mobile development is not synonymous to Android > development. > > > 2013/7/6 Daniel Zwolenski <zon...@gmail.com> > >> As the platform architect, what direction would you suggest the community >> take to make JFX work on iOS and on Android? >> >> If Oracle came to their senses and said: "Richard, that whole smart device >> space might actually be more than a passing fad, let's put jfx on it, and >> do it whatever way you think best", what would your implementation strategy >> look like? >> >> Would you backport or use another VM or do your own VM impl, or what? How >> long would you expect whatever strategy you'd pick to take, how many >> resources would you have on it, and what bits would you see needing the >> most attention, what would your milestones look like, etc. I don't see why >> Oracle not doing this doesn't mean we can't get your guidance and wisdom on >> this if you're willing to provide it. >> >> And looking particularly here beyond hello worlds and brick breaker demos, >> at a sustainable robust, performant platform that can be used and relied >> upon for commercial use both now and as java 8, 9, 10 etc come out. >> >> I get the feeling were a long long way from that, if indeed it's >> achievable. What's your view on this? >> >> >> >> On 06/07/2013, at 12:34 PM, Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >>> It's complicated. We've prototyped on all kinds of VMs including the CVM >> used with ADF mobile and a hacked up Java SE embedded 7. It's a long way >> from prototype to product and as I mentioned on my blog we have not >> announced any plan around SE embedded VM on iOS / Android. But at least we >> know that our port of fx was (mostly) functional and could be successful. >>> >>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 12:44 PM, Tobias Bley <t...@ultramixer.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, the question is: Has Oracle a hidden Java8 VM for Android and >> iOS? Or how do you test your Android and iOS JavaFX implementation??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 05.07.2013 um 16:42 schrieb Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com>: >>>> >>>>> We have implementations for Android and iOS that are both functional >> on a Java 8 VM. It looks like, because the iOS one is so closely related to >> the Mac build, it was the easiest one to get a build for the open >> community. We're working on the Android build scripts. The situation on >> Android is exactly the same as iOS -- we're open sourcing the library code, >> but not a Java 8 VM. I would expect that if the iOS build on RoboVM works, >> that the Android build for RoboVM would also work, but I haven't tried it. >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 5, 2013, at 5:07 AM, Daniel Zwolenski <zon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Niklas - sounds like there's still a bit to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm still a bit confused though, I thought the JFX team were/are >> giving us a version of jfx that is specifically designed to work on Android >> but it sounds like that's pretty far from the actuality? What will the >> gradle build for android actually give us? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd be keen to hear from someone on the jfx side on all of this. Is >> this how you planned for your smart device releases to work or has >> something gone wrong in the journey here? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/07/2013, at 9:57 PM, Niklas Therning <nik...@therning.org> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <mime-attachment.txt> >> >>
