I don't have any answer to those questions. A JEP is the only thing I can think of.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has > demonstrated. > > But, I think it's a bit of an over simplification. > > How do I know if *my* innovation (of say 9 months of effort) is "high-quality > code that makes OpenJFX better"? > > I can do my best to write high-quality code but what exactly does "make > OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced > 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards > such functionality. > > Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated? And, how do I know > *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make > OpenJFX better" or be integrated? > > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > Chief Scientist/Architect > Rosethorn Technology > Australia > > On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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. >>> >> >> >
