There is more to this issue than simply JavaFX, iOS and Android. There
is a bigger picture here that involves the complex relationships
between Oracle, Apple and Google.
I think it is fair to say that we all have enormous respect for
Richard Bair and his team. It seems to me we should listen to Richard.
If I understand his postings correctly, he is saying that we, the
community, should "create a new OpenJDK project" which, if it "used
the OpenJDK class libraries" would let his team "put support directly
into the OpenJFX build system for building FX and running FX apps ...
directly on RoboVM".
It seems to me that the message here is that Oracle is totally willing
and able to support RoboVM as an OpenJDK project. Niklas - are you up
for it? The optics here are important. The project must be created by
the community (NOT BY ORACLE).
from Richard's post of October 22:
Personally I'm interested in RoboVM on Android, so that there is a
single VM across both iOS and Android. Also if RoboVM supported the
OpenJDK class libraries, it would make this so much simpler for us and
provide a consistent story. For example, the OpenJFX project is an
OpenJDK project and we really can't be officially promoting a VM that
doesn't implement the Java standard. It puts us in a very awkward
position. If RoboVM used the OpenJDK class libraries instead of the
Android class libraries, not only could I push it at conferences like
JavaOne, but I could also put support directly into the OpenJFX build
system for building FX and running FX apps (like Hello*, Modena,
Ensemble, etc) directly on RoboVM without developers having to setup
anything special. This would be huge for making it easy for people to
contribute iOS fixes to OpenJFX. But I can't do that if RoboVM doesn't
actually implement "Java".
and, from November 8:
Totally, I think the normal process for this is to create a new
OpenJDK project, is it not? Can you take a look at the OpenJDK bylaws
and report back on the process? I think it would be awesome to do a
port. Note that there are a few OpenJDK ports already which have ARM
support, you might want to look there as a starting point?
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira
<pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure the javafx team is doing a great job. My intention was not to
put
that in question but to try to contribute further to this discussion.
Yes indeed oracle javafx team has fewer resources than what should be
preferred. We need to harvest the power of the community in the best way
we
can to further expand the this "resources".
In that sense I think the best to do is to get better organized at doing
so.
Instead of a man for himself kind of effort we should have a kind of
corporate like structure with the intricacies of being a group of
volunteers...
On Nov 9, 2013 1:21 PM, "Felix Bembrick" <felix.bembr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What we do know is that Oracle are working on "something" and that
RoboVM
is already out there. We also know that RoboVM has serious limitations
such as being based on the Android class library, not supporting JDK 8
or
OpenJDK or invokedynamic etc. so is not really a viable solution at this
stage. This is not to say that the work of Niklas is not first-class
as it
clearly is an awesome technology even in its current form.
I think the key factor we need to consider here is that RoboVM is
essentially a one person project and even the JavaFX team at Oracle
itself
is not that large. Although it's difficult to gauge exactly how many
are
on the team, I would say from the various names that pop-up on the
OpenJFK
list and in private conversations we are possibly looking at a dozen or
less active staff and possibly a total head count of developers in
single
figures.
Clearly then, with such a small pool of talent, it is not practical to
dilute the effort over more than one project. In an ideal world where
we
had two or more projects backed by large corporations with infinite
resources then the more competition would be helpful for long term
viability and quality. But our world is hardly ideal and it makes
sense to
have everyone on the same page.
To this end I tend to agree with Pedro DV in that we need Oracle to come
clean and "open up" the porting of JavaFX to iOS, Android and any other
potential OS. I am not going to comment on whether Oracle are doing a
good/bad job as I am sure there are many more factors and issues that we
are not privy to that prevents them from doing exactly what we would
like
them to do. They are not out to derail JavaFX and in fact are very much
behind it being viable on mobiles and tablets.
I know Richard Bair and I have to say that he is one of the most
passionate developers and believers in Java and JavaFX there is so I am
sure he is keener than anyone for it to succeed on all platforms.
Perhaps we have to approach Oracle with positivity and a willingness to
help and hope that they are in a position (technically/legally/etc.) to
open things up and invite us in. I am absolutely convinced that JavaFX
on
iOS and Android will never be a success if we don't all work together
which
means pooling our resources and code and contributing to an
Oracle-driven
project.
Felix
On 9 November 2013 23:06, Pedro Duque Vieira <
pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi,
Pardon me for saying this but I think Oracle is really handling this
issue
very badly. I think very poor communication strategy is the real issue
and
source of much frustration from the community.
I can see that Oracle is indeed working and assigning programming
hours to
bringing JavaFX to iOS and Android but there is very little
communication
going on about Oracle progress on this..
I think Oracle should tell us more about their work with javafx on iOS
and
Android. Oracle should create an article or wiki or whatever about
their
progress on this:
1 - That site/article/whatever should detail what's the current state,
what's missing, what's the roadmap..
2 - Oracle should tell us how can the community help with the current
effort. Creating a list of tasks that could be accomplished by a
community
member would be very helpful! That would assure that we are not working
all
on the same thing and thus wasting time. Each community member could
than
pick up a task and say he/she is working on it and provide pointers to
their project and current work so anyone can chime in and help.
I think tasks that can be handled by the community should preferably be
tasks that should not be too big in scope/development hours - community
members usually do this on their spare time for a couple of hours.
Currently the only tasks we have are:
- Develop iOS port or iOS jvm
- Develop Android port or Android jvm
This is too big for any community member to pick up. Too big in scope
and
too much to wrap your mind on.
3 - Oracle should provide an estimated time/effort for each task and
for
each project. Also an indication of the task importance level would be
very
helpful. Preferably tasks with a very high importance level should be
handled by javafx team members.
4 - Oracle should be the steward of this effort. I think this point is
very
important for the following reasons:
4.1 - Oracle has more know-how on this than any community member can
possible have. So it does not make sense for community members which
are
less prepared to accomplish this to be the stewards of such effort. It
would be like asking a sailor to command a ship and have the captain
mop
the floors of the deck.
4.2 - By having Oracle as the steward, businesses will be more
inclined
in betting on developing projects for iOS/Android/Windows phone. This
is a
credibility issue.
4.3 - By having Oracle as the steward community members are more
inclined
to help and contribute than say contributing to RoboVM. No offense
intended
here, I think RoboVM is a great effort and probably the best thing to
happen on the javafx space since its start.
My 2 cents,
Thanks, regards,
--
Pedro Duque Vieira
--
Richard P. Walker
thoughtslin...@gmail.com
This email is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom
it is addressed and may be privileged and confidential. Unauthorised
use or disclosure is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error,
please advise immediately and delete the original message. This
message may have been altered without your or our knowledge and the
sender does not accept any liability for any errors or omissions in
the message.
Ce courriel est confidentiel et protégé. L'expéditeur ne renonce pas
aux droits et obligations qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce message ou des renseignements qu'il
contient par une personne autre que le (les) destinataire(s)
désigné(s) est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur,
veuillez m'en aviser immédiatement, par retour de courriel ou par un
autre moyen.
