What can we expect from the JavaFX team in this regard in the future? I know we 
have talked about mixing lightweight and heavyweight controls in the same 
context but is it going to happen? Is this planned for JFX9 perhaps? Is it 
*really* even feasible?

> On 10 Dec 2013, at 4:55, Stephen F Northover <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> 
> wrote:
> Today, you can only exercise the choice by writing native code and you face 
> heavyweight / lightweight issues depending on the platform and API.
> Steve
>> On 2013-12-09 12:31 PM, Felix Bembrick wrote:
>> Stephen, I thoroughly agree that JavaFX is by far the best choice for 
>> non-native apps/widgets which is precisely my point. They are the kind of 
>> apps perfect for using JavaFX.
>> But you refer to giving people the choice to go native where appropriate. 
>> How can I exercise that choice? Where is the support for native widgets in 
>> JavaFX?
>> And isn't the real Holy Grail being able to mix native and non-native 
>> widgets in the same app with all features of Node being available to every 
>> widget, with all the effects and transforms, all the CSS/styling and with 
>> all the performance?
>> Could JavaFX ever be such a toolkit?
>>> On 10 Dec 2013, at 2:24, Stephen F Northover <steve.x.northo...@oracle.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> Here are my thoughts on the matter.  Give people the choice of whether to 
>>> use native or non-native components.  In some applications, everything will 
>>> be non-native.  In others, only the main content area will be non-native 
>>> and the rest will be native. In some mobile applications, perhaps the 
>>> preference pages will be native and other parts will not.
>>> JavaFX is the best choice for non-native widgets and we are committed to 
>>> making it the best toolkit all around.
>>> Steve
>>>> On 2013-12-09 9:49 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>>>> I agree that perfect sync with native look and feels is not what is 
>>>> required and not worth the effort.  I do think though that major concepts 
>>>> in the platform's look and feel should (must!) be followed or the user 
>>>> experience is ruined.
>>>> The example of the order of the ok and cancel buttons has been brought up 
>>>> already.  But that isn't even the most important one.
>>>> Things like shortcut keys. CTRL-C to copy on windows, Command-C to copy on 
>>>> Mac.  Standard menu layouts, right-click behaviour and standard context 
>>>> menus.  They just have to be in the right place.  That they look different 
>>>> doesn't matter as much. And this doesn't mean that you can't try new ideas 
>>>> for UI.  But basic things that users expect to work should still work. 
>>>> E.g. Command-Q on OS X better quit the app :-)
>>>> As noted already with my reference to Office and browsers.. Fully native 
>>>> apps can be non-compliant with the platforms look and feel.  So this isn't 
>>>> really a Java-specific issue.
>>>> Scott
>>>>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:24 AM, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Spoiler: This is something I have become intensely passionate about so 
>>>>> this is likely to be a long post...
>>>>> OK, so this (hijacked) thread started out as a discussion of options in 
>>>>> JavaFX for implementing "Look and Feel".  I think everyone agrees that 
>>>>> even with CSS and skins, JavaFX lacks the built-in ability to define a 
>>>>> true Look *and* Feel.  Further to this, there has been discussion on 
>>>>> Twitter and elsewhere regarding *native* Look and Feel and the merits of 
>>>>> attempting such an animal with JavaFX.
>>>>> It is on this topic that I would like to add my 2 bits (as I am known to 
>>>>> do)!  I was going to use my blog http://justmy2bits.com but decided I 
>>>>> would be much more likely to be able to engage fellow JavaFX developers 
>>>>> in a positive, polite and respectful conversation here.
>>>>> First, anyone who may follow me on Twitter, in this forum or when I post 
>>>>> in other forums (anyone?) will probably be a little bit confused as to 
>>>>> where I actually stand on this issue.  Well, this stems from the fact 
>>>>> that I have been giving confusing (if not conflicting) input into various 
>>>>> threads on this topic for quite a while.
>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Well, because until very recently, I myself was completely torn on the 
>>>>> subject of native Look and Feel.  In fact, I seemed to oscillate on an 
>>>>> almost daily basis from thinking it's a great, achievable idea to 
>>>>> dismissing such an idea on various grounds.  I am swaying so much because 
>>>>> I have so much riding on successful ports of JavaFX to iOS and Android 
>>>>> and because those ports depend heavily on resolving this issue once and 
>>>>> for all.
>>>>> Now I have had something of an epiphany and reached a conclusion.  I now 
>>>>> do not believe that pouring large (massive?) amounts of resources into 
>>>>> the painstaking task of building a fully compliant, fully performant 
>>>>> native Look and Feel is justifiable or worth the effort.  And let's be 
>>>>> clear about this: it is a *lot* of effort!
>>>>> But before I proceed I just want to say categorically how much I admire 
>>>>> the thoroughly awesome work/efforts of the likes of Pedro DV, Claudine 
>>>>> Zillmann, Hendrik Ebbers et. al. in (trying ever so hard) to bring native 
>>>>> Look and Feel to various OS/platforms with JavaFX.  I cannot put in words 
>>>>> how much I am in awe of the commitment, the attention to detail, the 
>>>>> technical prowess, the artistry and the drive of these fantastic people.  
>>>>> Their work will undoubtedly be extremely useful to many developers 
>>>>> worldwide.
>>>>> I want to make all that *perfectly clear* because now I am going to 
>>>>> explain why I (probably) will not be one of those people and (hopefully) 
>>>>> do it with the utmost respect for the aforementioned rock stars :-)
>>>>> Right, so back to the issue of whether to or not to implement or use a 
>>>>> native Look and Feel.  Some of the following comments have already been 
>>>>> made by me on other networks and in other forums so apologies if it seems 
>>>>> a bit repetitive to some.
>>>>> At first glance, the idea of a native Look and Feel seems almost like the 
>>>>> proverbial Holy Grail.  I mean, if such a thing were truly possible and 
>>>>> viable, who wouldn't want one?  You still have your single codebase 
>>>>> across all platforms and you just just plug-in the particular native Look 
>>>>> and Feel for your target platform and voila!  World domination will 
>>>>> surely soon follow!
>>>>> Well, not quite.  It's a great idea but I am going out on a limb to claim 
>>>>> that it has *never* worked.  Ever!  And by "work" I mean so that your 
>>>>> "not-so-native" app looks and feels (which includes all aspects of 
>>>>> behaviour, not just appearance) *exactly* like a true native app and *no 
>>>>> one* could tell you that it *wasn't* a native app.
>>>>> Yes, I know there are masses now screaming at their monitors who will 
>>>>> undoubtedly cite the numerous success stories of Swing apps or maybe even 
>>>>> Qt or some other cross-platform UI toolkit and maybe my 
>>>>> standards/criteria are harsher than others but I stand by my claim that 
>>>>> this has *never ever* really, really, really worked.
>>>>> OK, so why not?
>>>>> Here's my first point: I postulate that such a noble goal is not actually 
>>>>> achievable.  It is not actually achievable for a number of reasons.
>>>>> It is not actually achievable because, in most cases, we do not have 
>>>>> access to the code that implements the native controls on each OS so, at 
>>>>> best, we are "guessing" when we try to emulate all aspects of their 
>>>>> appearance and behaviour.  Try as we may, we will never get *every* 
>>>>> control exactly right and I firmly believe that anything that purports to 
>>>>> be something else needs to be *identical*.
>>>>> It is not actually achievable because just as you feel you have reached 
>>>>> an acceptable level of "compliance" (which I again wager is never 100%), 
>>>>> the goal posts will move.  That is, the OS vendor will release an update 
>>>>> and even the minor ones can change either the appearance or behaviour of 
>>>>> controls, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in not so subtle ways.  
>>>>> Either way, there is then going to be a period of time where you are 
>>>>> playing a futile game of catch-up and during that time your "native" 
>>>>> controls will be surely exposed for the impostors they are.
>>>>> It is not actually achievable because the same control on one OS can look 
>>>>> and feel/behave quite differently on another OS which leads to very poor 
>>>>> levels of reuse.
>>>>> It is not actually achievable because many controls simply can't be 
>>>>> emulated in using Java/JavaFX most likely because they have exclusive 
>>>>> access to native system or OS calls that are not accessible to Java or 
>>>>> because the expected levels of performance or "snappiness" cannot be 
>>>>> achieved using Java by any means.  Even with JNA or JNI you would be left 
>>>>> scratching your head in many cases.
>>>>> And, it is not actually achievable because it's simply too much work to 
>>>>> get anywhere near to perfection!  We are talking *massive* amounts of 
>>>>> effort and very few people have either the talent, the eye, the attention 
>>>>> to detail or the patience to see such a project right through to the end 
>>>>> where *all* controls are covered.  The rock stars I mentioned earlier are 
>>>>> the exceptions of course.  There's clearly zero point in emulating *some* 
>>>>> of the controls only; you need the *full set* or it's just not viable.
>>>>> Finally, and to look at it another way, what do we get even if some 
>>>>> super-human delivers us a native Look and Feel for every possible 
>>>>> platform?  Well, a massive maintenance nightmare for a start!  This 
>>>>> super-human would basically be spending all their super time and using up 
>>>>> all their super powers just keeping such libraries current.
>>>>> So, if you are still with me, why bother?  Just consider if all those 
>>>>> rock stars (and super heroes) concentrated all their super efforts into 
>>>>> either improving the features, stability, performance or appearance of 
>>>>> JavaFX itself?  Just think what we could achieve!
>>>>> And on the why bother theme, why bother to devote all that time and 
>>>>> effort, spend all those millions, tear out all that hair and hit all 
>>>>> those roadblocks when the very thing we are trying to achieve is already 
>>>>> available?
>>>>> Yes, that's right, if you really, really, really want to build a native 
>>>>> app then why don't you just build a native app?  There are numerous 
>>>>> tools, languages, IDEs, toolchains and libraries that enable you to build 
>>>>> awesome *true* native apps!  I just don't think JavaFX is one of them :-)
>>>>> And it doesn't have to be one of those toolkits because JavaFX can be 
>>>>> used to build an entirely different class of application and I now 
>>>>> strongly believe that this is the kind of app we should be concentrating 
>>>>> on.  That class (or classes) of app is one that is not so heavily 
>>>>> dependent on the native Look and Feel and doesn't need to be.  There are 
>>>>> probably hundreds of thousands of apps that are like this.  They are 
>>>>> everywhere and JavaFX is *perfect* for them!
>>>>> Scott Palmer has argued that this approach is not valid (and sorry Scott 
>>>>> if am inaccurately paraphrasing you).  He cites examples such as Chrome, 
>>>>> Firefox and even MS Office as proof that this approach does not work.  
>>>>> However, my response to that would be to say that just because these are 
>>>>> examples of where the developers got it seriously wrong, they do not 
>>>>> prove that this approach can't work and isn't working all over the 
>>>>> marketplace.
>>>>> There is no need to develop crappy, mistake ridden software by using a 
>>>>> toolkit such as JavaFX in a way that does not attempt to emulate the 
>>>>> native Look and Feel and the fact that even big companies like Google 
>>>>> *still* clearly get it horribly wrong doesn't imply that we *all* have to 
>>>>> be so ineffective.
>>>>> Part of my newly-found aversion to emulated native Look and Feel comes 
>>>>> from my many years of both developing and using Swing applications.  
>>>>> Sure, I know there are *some* (handful?) successful Swing apps, most 
>>>>> notably those developed with the NetBeans RCP, but in general Swing has 
>>>>> failed to have any penetration into serious commercial software.  Why?  
>>>>> Well, there are several reasons (and a lot are due to Java itself) but, 
>>>>> for me, I was never satisfied with the so-called native Look and Feel 
>>>>> options that come with Swing.  I have been (and still am) very critical 
>>>>> of the Windows Look and Feel in Swing in particular because, even today, 
>>>>> there is a vast gulf between an actual native Windows application and a 
>>>>> Swing application with this Look and Feel.  So much so that I still want 
>>>>> to almost knock my monitor off the desk when I am using an application 
>>>>> developed in this way.  For me, this is not acceptable and such an 
>>>>> application could never be released as a serious commercial product.
>>>>> And that's pretty much what this all boils down to: developing serious 
>>>>> commercial software.
>>>>> If you are interested in developing something else then these lengthy 
>>>>> comments (am I *still* going?) probably do not apply to you :-)
>>>>> So to summarise, I argue that it is not possible to develop serious 
>>>>> commercial software using emulated Look and Feel in JavaFX or in *any* UI 
>>>>> toolkit.  I *strongly* recommend that we all work together to make JavaFX 
>>>>> as good as it can be (which is absolutely awesome) by focusing on the 
>>>>> core product, the API, the performance, the feature set, the stability 
>>>>> *and* the supported platforms rather than throw good money after bad on a 
>>>>> *wonderful* goal that ultimately can never be reached...
>>>>> Just my 2 bits,
>>>>> Felix
>>>>> P.S. I surely hope I have not offended any/all those who either disagree 
>>>>> with the main points or who still believe that native Look and Feel is 
>>>>> viable.  I remind you all that I am on my knees bowing with respect to 
>>>>> the rock stars I referred to and anyone else working on similar projects. 
>>>>>  Absolutely no offence is intended, I am merely expressing my 
>>>>> (passionate) feelings on this subject.
>>>>>> On 9 December 2013 19:10, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9 December 2013 16:10, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> Firstly, it will *never* be possible to completely emulate the native 
>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>> and feel.
>>>>>>> Sure it is. Though it may never be practical, for many of the reasons 
>>>>>>> you have given.
>>>>>>>> My reasoning is: why bother?
>>>>>>> Because it matters. As computer literate developers, we often don't 
>>>>>>> realize what trips other people up.  I get so frustrated with apps 
>>>>>>> these days because they have become hard to use simply because the 
>>>>>>> developers tried to define their own look and feel.  For example, 
>>>>>>> Chrome and Firefox... Or Microsoft Office...
>>>>>>> Where did the title bar go in chrome?
>>>>>>> Where have all the menus gone in Chrome, Firefox andOffice?  I can find 
>>>>>>> them, but when I have to play tech support over the phone to my parents 
>>>>>>> these changes are massive problems. I ask my dad to move he window by 
>>>>>>> dragging the title bar (please don't ask why he doesn't know to do this 
>>>>>>> himself after decades of computer use) and he says "there is no title 
>>>>>>> bar"... I the remember that yes, chrome did that... They got rid of a 
>>>>>>> standard concept in the OS' windowing system and screed the end users.
>>>>>>> These apps became harder to use because of this "innovation" in the UI.
>>>>>>> Contrast this with applications on OS X where getting the UI right has 
>>>>>>> always been an important priority for developers.  Because adhering to 
>>>>>>> the system look and feel has always been strongly encouraged the system 
>>>>>>> is much easier to use.
>>>>>>>> These days, many apps do not look 100% native and may have their own
>>>>>>>> controls or look and feel in general.
>>>>>>> Yes, but to what end? They are now more difficult to use.
>>>>>>>>  Why not channel all that massive
>>>>>>>> effort in constructing an emulated native look and feel into simply 
>>>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>> JavaFX better overall?
>>>>>>> But I agree here.  The general look isn't the main issue.. E.g. little 
>>>>>>> variations in color and minor tweaks to a few pixels here and there 
>>>>>>> don't really matter.  What does matter is when you change the order of 
>>>>>>> buttons, like Okay & Cancel which have standard places that are 
>>>>>>> different between Mac and Windows, or you move the About menu item from 
>>>>>>> the Application menu on an OS X app to the help menu! because that is 
>>>>>>> where you find it on Windows.  Those things matter.
>>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>>> Felix
>>>>>>>> On 9 December 2013 12:35, Pedro Duque Vieira 
>>>>>>>> <pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>> @Jasper: Yes, that's very interesting! Forgot that was possible to do 
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> CSS.
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Stephen Winnall <st...@winnall.ch> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It may be possible to change the LOOK with CSS, but not the FEEL, 
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> where Java apps have traditionally failed big time.
>>>>>>>>>> Some things that I don’t think can be changed with CSS:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) texts
>>>>>>>>>> 2) order of buttons
>>>>>>>>>> 3) escape characters for shortcuts
>>>>>>>>>> 4) menus
>>>>>>>>>> 5) system-level stuff (double-clicking on files, dropping files on
>>>>>>>>>> applications, …)
>>>>>>>>>> 6) filesystem conventions
>>>>>>>>>> 7) ...
>>>>>>>>>> I think FXML can fix some of these, but not all. So it seems to me 
>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>> LaF in JFX will consist of at least:
>>>>>>>>>>        - one or more CSS files
>>>>>>>>>>        - one or more FXML files
>>>>>>>>>>        - some plumbing at the system level
>>>>>>>>>> It would be nice to have a set of proper LaFs for each major platform
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> an appropriate common API.
>>>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jasper Potts <jasper.po...@oracle.com> 
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> You can set skin classes from CSS so should be able to do everything
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> could with Swing and more. With just a CSS file and skins as and when
>>>>>>>>>> needed.
>>>>>>>>>>> Jasper
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Giles 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <jonathan.gi...@oracle.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> At present there are no plans to introduce any further API or
>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality in this area, but if there is something you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wanting
>>>>>>>>>>>> then you should file feature requests in Jira.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2013 11:54 a.m., Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any Look and Feel mechanism in place, like the one in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Swing?
>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't appear to exist..
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any plans to add one? You can only do so much with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CSS...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance, best regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Pedro Duque Vieira

Reply via email to