I posted this over a week ago: > I am willing to work with *anyone* (within Oracle or not) on the features that the community craves, > such as those I listed (and any others). Not just because “many hands make light work” but because > I don’t know everything (or even close) and I need the knowledge and skills of others to assist me. Not > to mention that I have only 24 hours in a day like everyone else and, also like everyone else, some of > that time has to be devoted to earning an income. > > So, if there’s anyone reading this who has the time, the skills, the commitment and the passion to work hard (in your own time) to get these tasks done then please contact me privately.
To my significant disappointment, only one person has contacted me since then in relation to this proposal. I'm beginning to think that I am completely out of touch with the JavaFX community, what they actually want and also with exactly *what* JavaFX is or is meant to be. I have reached out on this list and via Twitter in the hope that an inspired and passionate group of developers could come together, pool their resources and collaborate on taking JavaFX as far is it can possibly go as a fully-fledged hardware-accelerated graphics toolkit for the JVM. But... it seem that my "vision" for JavaFX is unique to me and I have to say that I really don't understand why that is. Is it that the JavaFX community see it as merely a Swing replacement or "upgrade" and that there just aren't people out there who want to do more sophisticated things with a Java-based toolkit or at least see performance increase dramatically? Or, do people feel that the kind of features you can find in say Qt cannot be added to JavaFX because it's a "Java thing": well all know how slow Java is and that if you want to do real animations, visualisations etc. then you have to use C++? Well, it's not the 1990s anymore. Java is NOT the problem. So, what IS the problem? I have to say that as chief architect for my company, if the JavaFX community (and I include Oracle as a big part of that) simply don't want to see innovation in JavaFX, won't support or contribute to making it happen or feel they don't need it, causing JavaFX to lag further and further behind other graphic toolkits and never be capable of supporting such features as advanced animations, visualisations, games, 3D, VR, AR and have proper HTML5 support etc. then, despite being a huge Java fan and advocate, JavaFX simply can't even be on the table of technologies to choose from when I'm developing a technological strategy. So, I'd like to ask this multi-part question in the hope that as many people reply as possible: *** For *your* siutation, what is JavaFX, how do you want it to evolve and what does it mean to you? *** Maybe I really am "Robinson Crusoe"... Graciously, John-Val Rose Chief Scientist/Architect Rosethorn Technology On 6 December 2017 at 17:16, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Absolutely - there needs to be a viable community that is not just Oracle. > > So, is there one? If not, how do we build one? > > OK, so let me rephrase my earlier email: > > I am willing to work with *anyone* (within Oracle or not) on the features > that the community craves, such as those I listed (and any others). Not > just because “many hands make light work” but because I don’t know > everything (or even close) and I need the knowledge and skills of others to > assist me. Not to mention that I have only 24 hours in a day like everyone > else and, also like everyone else, some of that time has to be devoted to > earning an income. > > So, if there’s anyone reading this who has the time, the skills, the > commitment and the passion to work hard (in your own time) to get these > tasks done then please contact me privately. > > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:50, Philip Race <philip.r...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> >
