There must be other reasons than money to do not support jfx on mobile because oracle could also sell licenses for JFX on mobile.
I am tired to discuss this topic again and again. The point is: oracle does not talk to the community. Richard tries to do it within the legal zone but that is not satisfying for us and this discussion. Just a dream: what would happen if the JavaFX team of Oracle would Leave the company and start a "spin off" to develop and promote jFX as real cross platform solution for desktop, mobile, embedded and web. That would be the real juck Norris experiment ;) Cheers Tobi blog.software4java.com > Am 10.11.2013 um 05:39 schrieb Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com>: > > 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. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >
