> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? What he said here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2017-September/020801.html .
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:08 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > The concept of “innovation” no longer seems to apply to JavaFX, at least > not from Oracle’s perspective. > > If you read the official list of changes in the just-released Java 9, AWT > (yes, AWT) has more changes than JavaFX and even then the only significant > change is to make it Jigsaw compatible. > > A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and > introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX > Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope > that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”. > > So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but is > very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves. > > I personally have not been able to get any response from them except > “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note, > that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what? > > What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon > are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent > and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive > frequency. > > Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former > Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them > and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s > doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as > possible. > > But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get > large-scale changes to happen? > > Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of individuals > each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated fashion. > > The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own perspective > on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the community > ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in general. > > I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that > call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the > moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises > his efforts. > > That’s what businesses do. > > So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even > this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce > everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward. > > That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward” rather > than “sideways”. > > Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going > backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon... > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > > > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I didn't see any update on the idea for our initiative. Are we still > waiting for a reply from Oracle or do we go with Johan Vos's experience? > > > > I think that the least we can do without putting any work into this is > have a semi-formal list of people who would like to work on this and a > list of what features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't > know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it. >
