I think Phil said that, the way to propose such changes is to file a Jep and discuss it here.
Cheers, Mario On Wed 6. Dec 2017 at 09:07, Markus KARG <mar...@headcrashing.eu> wrote: > I think what John actually asked for is whom to send his design upfront at > the JFX team to get an initial judgement whether it is worth programming > it, or whether it bears such flaws that it makes not much sense to invest > any more time. Whether or not that decision is done by an Oracle employee > or not, he simply needs to know whom to sent his proposal for early review. > > -Markus > > -----Original Message----- > From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf > Of Philip Race > Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 06:50 > To: John-Val Rose > Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes) > > There needs to be a viable community that is not just Oracle to support > you here .. > I think everyone has come to be dependent on Oracle to "be there". > But if there is a specific community need that Oracle doesn't see as > essential, then the community should help out. > > -phil. > > On 12/5/17, 9:27 PM, John-Val Rose wrote: > > Well, that’s all fine but you didn’t address the issue of working with > someone within Oracle to get these innovations done. > > > > Sure, I could just toil away by myself but clearly it would be better > all around if there was someone with much more extensive knowledge of > JavaFX and its internals who was accessible when required. > > > > I would assume that a member of the Oracle JavaFX team would be such a > person. If not, then who? > > > >> On 6 Dec 2017, at 15:53, Philip Race<philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > >> > >> I think looking at it as an Oracle-owned and controlled project maybe > the first mistake here. > >> Yes it was closed source and then Oracle controlled, but not any more, > OCA requirements aside. > >> It is not even a "java specification". It can be evolved at an API > level without a JSR. > >> The JEP process is the main thing to be followed, although we also use > CSRs too to track API. > >> Consider it that anyone who is a contributor owns (not the right word > ?) a piece of it too. > >> So standing on the project is what matters. Not the company who pays > you to work on it. > >> > >> -phil. > >> > >>> On 12/5/17, 8:21 PM, John-Val Rose wrote: > >>> Phil et. al., > >>> > >>> Whilst I’m not going to be quite as “passionate” as some on this issue > (although I do understand the frustration), I would like to point out again > that this is indeed a huge gap and it is critical that it is filled ASAP. > >>> > >>> Obviously a solution where every word in a text document is a Node > would be unworkable so it would need to be architected from the ground up. > >>> > >>> I would be happy to work on such as feature, just as I was happy to > work on implementing WebGL, but my hesitation is concern over the > assistance and involvement from Oracle. > >>> > >>> If I am going to have to spend months working on something without any > or only minimal involvement from Oracle, only to find at the end that > Oracle either doesn’t like the design, implementation or something else > then it is wasted time I’ll never get back. > >>> > >>> There are lots of other innovations too that I would like to see in > JavaFX but I just don’t “feel the enthusiasm” from Oracle. > >>> > >>> If there is someone on the JavaFX team who would be willing to work > with me (at least in some capacity), please have them contact me privately > via email. > >>> > >>> The innovations I could work on and contribute include: > >>> > >>> 1. WebGL support in WebView > >>> 2. Better text support including text documents& rich text editors > etc. > >>> 3. Significant improvements in scene graph rendering speed using > >>> modern game-engine style structures and algorithms > >>> > >>> JavaFX cannot survive without innovation and I am keen to see it > happen and contribute as much as possible. > >>> > >>> Graciously, > >>> > >>> John-Val Rose > >>> Rosethorn Technology > >>> > >>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:36, jav...@use.startmail.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Sorry about all the typos previously. > >>>> > >>>> Question- why not use the code in awt ? I am not totally up on what's > going on with the platforms' native rendering engines ( meaning, I have no > idea whatsoever) or how they have changed, but golly it sure does still > work pretty well. > >>>> > >>>> At least it seems to me looking at awt that a smallish number of > things are 1) well defined by the native platofrm and 2) would more or less > translate directly to an Java API and 3) from those small number of > building blocks, (Font and Glyph metrics and this kind of thing) text > line layout algorithms can be written by ordinary civilians along with all > the other stuff that goes into a text editor. > >>>> > >>>> And yes, everything does look easy when someone else is going to do > it. > >>>> > >>>> > >
