Tobi, I don't think the issue of whether Oracle stands to make any money out of JavaFX on mobiles is relevant as I discussed here http://news.kynosarges.org/2013/10/10/javafx-on-ios-android/ and from which this excerpt is taken:
*"Now, on the point of little or no revenue coming Oracle’s way directly from JavaFX, the Glass Half Empty approach is to believe that JavaFX on iOS and Android *has* to generate revenue for Oracle to be interested in it. The Glass Half Full approach is to recognise that this is total fallacy and I’ll tell you why…* *When you go to buy a car, you go to a car dealer whose core business is selling cars… right? Wrong! The car dealer’s core business is actually servicing cars and selling spare parts. Most dealers actually make a *loss* on the sale of vehicles themselves and make the vast majority of their revenue and profits from servicing the cars and through selling spare parts to maintain them. The selling of cars is just a tool to enable their core business to exist.* *And it’s the same with Oracle and JavaFX on iOS and Android. Their core business is in licensing Java for embedded platforms and that is why you see so much focus on JavaFX on Raspberry Pi for example and an “official” JDK8 release for such hardware devices. However, for JavaFX to succeed long-term and be a viable technology into the future it *has* to run on the devices that most people already use namely mobile phones and tablets.* *Having JavaFX run on these platforms is akin to selling vehicles in my example whereas licensing Java on embedded platforms is the core business. One enables the other."* So basically, Oracle doesn't need to make any money from JavaFX on mobiles for it to be considered an important port. We need to encourage Oracle to let us in on their efforts in this area and I am sure the excellent work done on RoboVM can become part of that. As I said, there just aren't enough resources to maintain two projects basically trying to do the same thing. Whether that means enhancing RoboVM to work with OpenJFX/OpenJDK 8 or contributing to an Oracle-created project i just don't know at this time. Felix On 10 November 2013 06:23, Tobias Bley <t...@ultramixer.com> wrote: > The question is: Is JavaFX for mobile a business for Oracle to make big > money? I suppose Oracle don’t believe in it. They believe in servers, cloud > and the „Internet of Things“ - that’s why they invest in Rasp.PI, > Freescale, etc. > > btw: With „Oracle“ I mean „the management of Oracle“, not the guys of > Richards team. > > For me: RoboVM & OpenJDK is the right direction. > > > Am 09.11.2013 um 19:15 schrieb Tom Eugelink <t...@tbee.org>: > > > > > Oracle has a strict do-not-communicate-what-is-not-certain policy and I > actually commend them for it. Better to not communicate than make promises > you can't keep (I'm seeing the effect on that in many of the projects I'm > asked to assist). I think the urgency of mobile platforms is clear to > Oracle, given the recent focus on JavaME and the internet-of-things. > Patience is a virtue. > > > > My 2 cents, > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 2013-11-9 18:21, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote: > >> Sure we should listen to Richard. He is doing a great job as well as his > >> team. > >> I don't think however that enough is being communicated.. > >> > >> I don't think those legal boundaries are being layed out explicitly. > >> What are those legal boundaries? > >> Will RoboVM not be subject to those legal issues? > >> What's the difference between us creating a project and trying to > integrate > >> it into openjdk and Oracle doing it? > >> Once we create a project and try to integrate it into OpenJDK what will > >> happen? Can javafx team members contribute to it (apparently yes)? Will > >> Oracle be helping out and telling us what's the best route to follow? > >> > >> Once we get RoboVM correctly running javafx apps on iOS and Android what > >> will still be left out to do? Are things like comboboxes poping up > scroll > >> wheels already in place? What about app notifications? What about saving > >> app configurations to the local platform db? etc, etc? > >> I think there is a lot of stuff to discuss. Also I think Oracle should > be > >> telling us what have they accomplished so far, what exactly they are > >> working on (they are indeed actively working on this) for porting > javafx to > >> iOS and Android... probably something that an email can't cover > perfectly.. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Rick Walker <thoughtslin...@gmail.com > >wrote: > >> > >>> 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. > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >
