Re: Make javafx.controls open and community-driven
Desktop is already a smaller market compared before. And the competition has become toucher because of several toolkits out there - Electron, Flutter, Compose for Desktop, etc. Hence, the need for more open and community-driven JavaFX project. On Wed, Feb 3, 2021, 12:14 PM Ty Young, wrote: > On 2/2/21 8:16 PM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > > Hi Mike, > > > > First of all, I would have you consider revisiting your medical > observation > > on the state of JavaFX. If you've read the almost-weekly recurrent > threads > > of "should I use Swing or JavaFX" in r/Java, you'd realize that reports > of > > JavaFX's death are greatly exaggerated. But yes, it is very understaffed. > > Other than that, there is a discussion list, > > openjfx-disc...@openjdk.java.net, where you can bring up general > community > > and social media related topics and continue that branch of the > discussion > > there. > > > > 1. I also advocated for having JBS more open in the past. I was told that > > Oracle tried opening JBS for everyone, but it was a big mess. I > > remember Alan Bateman saying a few years ago in an Ask The Architect > > session, when he was asked about this, that more than half of the bugs > > submitted are about OpenGL in Minecraft. These are the things you don't > see > > from the outside. > > > I'm guessing some of those are the OpenGL segfault crash on exit that > affects (nearly?) *every* OpenGL based Java application for the last few > years, including JavaFX and Minecraft, on Nvidia hardware. I have to > clear out my build directory often because of it. > > > > As for the OCA, it is a license requirement for all of OpenJDK. The > > developers here have nothing to do with it. I suspect you will have to > take > > it up with the legal department of Oracle. Good luck :) > > > > OCA is more of a symptom of a larger problem IMO: gate keeping. > > > A long time ago I suggested a 1-liner change to JavaFX's build script > that would simply place the source zip generated with the JavaFX source > build *outside* the lib folder. Generating this zip inside the lib > folder caused runtime problems with Ant and Netbeans whenever you > designated the entire folder as a lib directory in a project and it > didn't make sense anyway. It was rejected, IIRC, because of Oracle's or > Gluon's server configuration issues with the change. There were no > issues doing a local build that I'm aware of when I tested the change > locally. > > > More recently, Oracle decided to break Swing applications that use the > GTK L&F on Arch Linux based distros in JDK 16, was notified of the issue > multiple times by multiple people, and AFAIK refused to revert the > changes simply because Arch Linux isn't a "supported" distro. AFAIK, > it's still not possible to even launch Netbeans on Arch Linux without > overriding the L&F. > > > Even more recently, I suggested (and was willing to actually do) what I > thought to be reasonable API changes to Project Panama, which I use in > my JavaFX application, were rejected because it was decided a year ago > behind closed doors discussions that the direction of that API part was > already decided. Not only that, but the ability to even have a public > discussion was basically shut down. > > > Someone has to be that person to make the decisions in the end, but > often times it feels like free outsourcing rather than contributing. One > moment it's "You should contribute!" and the next it's "No, I didn't > mean contribute *that* way!". > > > Anyway, this is a much larger issue that goes beyond JavaFX and I don't > want to derail, I'm just pointing out that not only when someone > suggests reasonable changes and fixes or, better yet(by far!), is > willing to make those changes, they are denied the ability to do so > because of reasons that person could not possibly be aware of. > >
Re: Make javafx.controls open and community-driven
Yes, please! Julez On Tue, Feb 2, 2021, 2:37 PM , wrote: > Hello. > > JavaFX is a great toolkit, which personally I like a lot, but it's slowly > dying for the past 5 years. You can barely > argue with that. Most of the devs still prefer Swing. Have a look how many > topics like "JavaFX is dead" on Reddit or > similar resources. Look how many community libraries are abandoned or > badly maintained > (https://github.com/mhrimaz/AwesomeJavaFX), including most popular ones, > like ControlsFX. Look how small the numbers of > real-world JavaFX apps. Also notice that no major Java apps adopted JavaFX > or have plans to use it in any near future. > Eclipse sticks with SWT, NetBeans uses FlatLaf ( > https://github.com/JFormDesigner/FlatLaf) and JetBrains puts lots of > resources into JetPack Compose. They even implemented interop layer for > Swing apps > ( > https://blog.jetbrains.com/cross-post/jetpack-compose-for-desktop-milestone-2-released/ > ). > > OpenJFX team is understaffed while modern desktop and mobile applications > require more components that JavaFX could > provide (and support) at the moment. javafx.controls are outdated and > Modena theme doesn't look pleasing anymore. But > that's not the worst part about it. The worst part is that it's almost > impossible to extend existing components. I do > understand that current resources and maintainers time are very limited > and maintaining graphics layer should be top > priority. The only thing I ask is to REMOVE BARRIERS that stop those who > want to improve standard controls. Make > javafx.controls fully open. Allow community to fix things that you don't > have time to fix. > > 1. The first obstacle is JBS. It's read-only for everyone, but OpenJDK > maintainers. But OpenJFX is not a part of > OpenJDK, not anymore. No other UI library imposes strict limitations like > these. Check Electron, Avalonia, WXwidgets, > even god-damned proprietary Qt. While it may be the case for low-level > stuff like javafx.graphics it's absolutely > unacceptable for controls. You're stopping a lot of people from commenting > existing bugs and sharing their workarounds > and any feedback they could provide. Moreover you require signing OCA from > everyone who want to commit into controls > even if it's a slightest improvement. > > 2. Controls implementation is hidden for NO GOOD REASON. Almost everything > in skins is private and things like *Behavior > are module-private. Hello, fellow users! Wanna DatePicker w/o text field > or TreeCell w/o disclosure node? Sorry, you > can't w/o re-implementing everything from scratch. This is effectively > stops everyone who want to improve current skin > for it's own project or create a library that extends current controls. > > https://github.com/sshahine/JFoenix/issues/955 > > https://github.com/controlsfx/controlsfx/wiki/Using-ControlsFX-with-JDK-9-and-above > > That's why JS is so popular. No self imposed limitations! Everything is > customizable, manipulate the DOM in any way you > want. > > 3. javafx.controls i18n support is very limited > ( > https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/tree/jfx16/modules/javafx.controls/src/main/resources/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/skin/ > > > resources). You've put a lot or resources in thing like RTL > implementation, but who cares if there's literally no API to > customize standard controls. Back to #2, it would be possible if you'd > opened skins for customization or/and reflection. > > Summary: > > - Move javafx.controls support to the Github (not to javafxports, it's > outdated and barely maintained). Mark issues: > "good first issue", "help needed" etc. Everyone do this, because it helps > to encourage new devs to participate into > development. This is exactly how social coding works. > - Allow community to extend and improve controls in any way they want. > Export "com.sun.javafx.scene.control" (esp > "com.sun.javafx.scene.control.behavior.*") and make everything " Node>" inside skins protected, not private. > I beg you to hear me. Controls are just controls, it's not a platform > thing, it's not something sacred you should keep > in private. You can't possibly foreknow all possible uses cases. By > stopping to extend them you just lose your users and > that's it. They simply go away and use more extensible and feature-rich > alternative. Ironically, even Swing beats JavaFX > in that case. We need more libraries like JFoenix and ControlsFX. Without > that you can't compete with either Flutter or > Compose in near future. You literally doom JavaFX to stay a bunch of > legacy controls no one really like or want to use. > Ideally javafx.controls should not rely on private javafx.graphics or > javafx.base API at all. > - Be open. Stop hiding in mailing lists. There's no corporation behind > JavaFX, it won't survive without community. > There's https://www.reddit.com/r/JavaFX. Share your plans, make regular > announcements, discuss what need to be improved. > Guide community efforts! > - Invest some
Re: How to create a fat jar for my JavaFX program?
I'm using maven-shade-plugin:
org.apache.maven.plugins
maven-shade-plugin
3.2.4
true
*:*
META-INF/*.SF
META-INF/*.DSA
META-INF/*.RSA
package
shade
false
package.to.Main
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 5:32 AM Davide Perini,
wrote:
> Hi all,
> thanks for the great project, I love JavaFX.
>
> I always used the maven plugin to crete fat jars with all my deps. The
> resulting jar is an executable one and ready to use.
>
> This is my pom that create the fat jar.
>
> but when I try to exceute the jar I get this error:
>
> Error: JavaFX runtime components are missing, and are required to run
> this appli
> cation
>
>
> if I explode the fat jar I can see that there are the javafx class in
> it. what am I doing wrong?
>
> Thanks
> Davide
>
> org.openjfx
> javafx-maven-plugin
> ${javafx.maven.plugin.version}
> org.dpsoftware.FastScreenCapture
> org.apache.maven.plugins
> maven-assembly-plugin
> ${project.build.directory}/
> JavaFastScreenCapture
> make-executable-jar-with-dependencies
> package single
> true
> org.dpsoftware.FastScreenCapture
>
> jar-with-dependencies
>
>
>
>
Re: Netbeans X & Java 11?
Hi Mike, Check this YT video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9aoicDiQ_A&feature=share Thank you. On Mon, Nov 19, 2018, 6:30 PM José Pereda Hi, Mike. > > Did you check the docs? https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/ > > There is a whole section for IDEs, including NetBeans ( > https://openjfx.io/openjfx-docs/#IDE-NetBeans), that explains how to work > with both modular and non-modular projects. > > While you may have noticed that the usual JavaFX project template doesn't > work, you can use a regular Java project, instead (the ant tasks have not > been updated yet, but they are working on it). > > There is a sample (a simple HelloFX that uses FXML) for each possible case > (modular/non-modular, each one with IDE tools, Maven or Gradle), that can > be found here: https://github.com/openjfx/samples/tree/master/IDE/NetBeans > . > > And those FXML files work of course with Scene Builder (10, but 11 will be > released very soon). > > Hope this helps you. Otherwise please feel free to file an issue: > https://github.com/openjfx/openjfx-docs/issues > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:22 AM Selim Dincer wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > IntelliJ works quite OK with 11. Make sure to rightclick the fxml files > -> > > open in scenebuilder instead of the integrated one because that's an > older > > version. Also if you want to run your app without maven / gradle then you > > need to download the javafx sdk and set JAVA_HOME otherwise you will get > > some weird error. Also make sure to configure your run configuration > > exactly like the recommended maven / gradle run configurations. > > Apart from that the guide on the openjfx site (the gradle variant) kind > of > > worked for me. > > > > This is why I suggested something like spring initializr or vert.x > starter > > before. > > > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, 22:02 Michael Dever wrote: > > > > > Oracle seems to have Destroyed the combination of: > > > Netbeans, JavaFX, and SceneBuilder, building JavaFX from an IDE. > > > > > > Is there any other IDE that supports and builds: JavaFX FXML > > Applications, > > > out of the box that just works, and that you can design the GUI > > > application from SceneBuilder? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mike Dever > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >
Re: JavaFX website
Hi all, I wish JavaFX could have a site that is similar to those of PrimeFaces or Bootstrap and other similar sites. They have a comprehensive pages for different components that even a new user or student can easily follow and try out. Thank you. Julez On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 9:55 PM Nir Lisker, wrote: > 1. I would like access, thanks. I'll be able to update the Eclipse > instructions and some of the Windows build instructions. > > 2. I submitted https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210360. It's > going > to take a large effort to go over every page there and see what needs > changing. If enough people join the task we could (and should) have it > updated for openjfx12. > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:49 PM Kevin Rushforth > > wrote: > > > 1. The OpenJFX Wiki on openjdk.java.net is ideal for maintaining pages > > related to the Project itself. This can be supplemented by other Wikis. > > As for access, any OpenJFX Project Author (or Committer) can have write > > access to the Wiki. Just let me know if you want access, but it isn't > > activated yet. > > > > 2. This is where the community could really help as noted by Johan and > > others. The tutorials are indeed out of date. If you want to file a JBS > > bug and assign it to me, I can see what needs to be done to either > > correct (if simple) or archive pages that are so out of date as to be > > useless (or worse, misleading). > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > > > On 9/4/2018 1:18 AM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > > 1. Yes. The OpenJFX wiki is editable only by specific people (or only > > > Kevin) and it requires a lot of updating. We need either to be able to > > > submit changes to it, or to use the GitHub wiki which is collaborative > by > > > design, in which case we need to hide the OpenJFX wiki to avoid > > confusion. > > > > > > 2. Yes. The tutorials [1] are slightly outdated (and SceneBuilder > should > > > disappear from there ASAP and point to Gluon). I don't know who > controls > > > those pages. > > > > > > 3. No. There's not enough traction. Jonathan Giles collects some "links > > of > > > the week" and the semi-zombified /r/JavaFX subreddit is enough to > > indicate > > > that we shouldn't invest yet in this direction. > > > > > > [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/javase-clienttechnologies.htm > > > > > > - Nir > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:02 AM Johan Vos > wrote: > > > > > >> It has been mentioned a number of times that JavaFX would benefit > from a > > >> JavaFX website. > > >> I see a number of options that fall in the category website: > > >> > > >> 1. A set of pages with details on what OpenJFX is, how to build, where > > to > > >> download and get release notes, how to contribute, roadmap,... That is > > what > > >> I believe can perfectly be done in the OpenJFX wiki. It can be the > > >> reference manual > > >> > > >> 2. A set of pages targeting new and existing JavaFX developers, with a > > >> focus on where to download, how to get started (maven/gradle/IDE's), > > where > > >> to get docs/tutorials and probably with some links to third party > > libraries > > >> (free/commercial). This is sort of the user manual. > > >> > > >> 3. A highly interactive community site, gathering tweets/blog posts > etc, > > >> more or less similar to what James Weaver and Gerrit Grunwald did > years > > >> ago. > > >> > > >> For 1: I think this is up to us (OpenJFX committers) to maintain and > > >> improve. It will also benefit the people here. > > >> > > >> For 2: This is the most important thing, I believe. It would be great > > if a > > >> number of people from this list step up to organize this. It can be a > > >> static website, a github page, or anything else. I don't think this > > >> strictly belongs under OpenJFX (which I consider to be the technical > > >> development umbrella) but it's extremely important to have. > > >> I think this is a perfect opportunity for people and companies who > want > > to > > >> get more active in JavaFX to get involved in. > > >> > > >> For 3: That would be nice, but I think it's too ambitious for now. I > > would > > >> be happy with a static, simple, clear website. > > >> > > >> - Johan > > >> > > > > >
Re: Is JavaFX going to truly be a community project?
Not sure if the term "drop" is correct. But, with what Oracle did, it would be more beneficial for JavaFX. The development has been more open; encouraging more contributors. Julez On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 9:55 PM Pedro Duque Vieira, < pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, just a site with code on github would be enough, for example. Without > any publicity or endorsement to any particular company. > > Jfxtras does this: http://jfxtras.org/ and the code of the site is on > github repository: https://github.com/JFXtras/jfxtras.github.com > > Outside of this, Gluon can still offer consultancy, payed support for > javafx, javafx based products, etc. > > I think this is the type of decisions that should be discussed among the > community before any action is taken. > > Cheers, > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 2:05 PM Werner Van Belle > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Just put it on github and let people fork it however they want. > > That would be "open". > > > > Werner,- > > > > PS: I _am_ seriously pissed at Oracle about this shit. I spend the last > > years specializing in their newest technology 'which they would never > > ever drop' and now they just drop it. > > > > On Sat, 2018-09-01 at 22:38 +1000, John-Val Rose wrote: > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > > > I just happen to agree with you in this issue. > > > > > > But, out of all the possible new custodians of JavaFX, I have to say > > > that I am always in awe of what Johan and Gluon have already > > > contributed and accomplished. > > > > > > So how do we ensue that OpenJFX is truly “open”? > > > > > > I agree that even though Gluon are doing a fantastic job, JavaFX > > > should not be a “Gluon product”. > > > > > > I think it’s a great move for Oracle to basically relinquish control > > > of JavaFX - but to whom? > > > > > > I’m not familiar enough with FOSS projects to offer any sage advice > > > but I totally agree that a “community” project has to be as open to > > > everyone as possible and no person or entity should have a commercial > > > advantage over others. > > > > > > So, basically I like your question, I don’t believe the current > > > scenario is satisfactory but unfortunately I confess I can’t offer > > > any suggestions of better scenarios. > > > > > > Graciously, > > > > > > John-Val Rose > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Sep 2018, at 22:00, Pedro Duque Vieira > > > l.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > For JavaFX to start being, truly, a community project it is > > > > important that > > > > it is perceived as a real community effort. Right now it's starting > > > > to look > > > > more like it's changing hands, from being an Oracle project to > > > > being a > > > > Gluon project. > > > > > > > > I don't have anything against Gluon, I'd say the same if for > > > > instance, > > > > instead of Gluon it was JPro or Karakun, or whatever... > > > > > > > > Hosting the JavaFX docs, builds, installations, etc on a company > > > > owned site > > > > or a company endorsed site sounds like a really bad idea. Which is > > > > what's > > > > happening right now. If it's to be a community project it should be > > > > owned > > > > by the community as a whole. As well as being perceived to be owned > > > > by the > > > > community as a whole. > > > > > > > > Being a one company project will deter the contributions of other > > > > players > > > > in the JavaFX space. Other players that also offer consultancy > > > > services, > > > > and JavaFX products will have a big disadvantage towards the > > > > company > > > > hosting the JavaFX assets and downloads. At the very minimum think > > > > about > > > > the huge advantage this company will have in publicity when > > > > compared to the > > > > others. > > > > > > > > A community project is a project where various players join efforts > > > > to > > > > mutually benefit each other. As soon as this starts being a project > > > > that's > > > > benefiting one particular company more than the others it ceases to > > > > be a > > > > community project. > > > > > > > > I don't think that anyone would like to join in on the efforts in > > > > this > > > > scenario. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pedro Duque Vieira - https://www.pixelduke.com >
Re: Is JavaFX going to truly be a community project?
Hi Pedro, I also agree. JavaFX should be developed outside of any profit organization. I'm not sure, maybe I'm quick to suggest this: perhaps, a foundation should be created to foster the development of JavaFX. And anyone (same people now, amd more) should be encouraged to participate. I'm not against Apache & Eclipse (they are so fantastic orgs) but I think a foundation whose sole purpose is to further the development of JavaFX would be better. And I think this org should be in contant touch with OpenJDK team as well as other initiatives the could help advance JavaFX (e.g. JSR 377). Thank you. Julian Jupiter On Sat, Sep 1, 2018, 8:38 PM John-Val Rose, wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > I just happen to agree with you in this issue. > > But, out of all the possible new custodians of JavaFX, I have to say that > I am always in awe of what Johan and Gluon have already contributed and > accomplished. > > So how do we ensue that OpenJFX is truly “open”? > > I agree that even though Gluon are doing a fantastic job, JavaFX should > not be a “Gluon product”. > > I think it’s a great move for Oracle to basically relinquish control of > JavaFX - but to whom? > > I’m not familiar enough with FOSS projects to offer any sage advice but I > totally agree that a “community” project has to be as open to everyone as > possible and no person or entity should have a commercial advantage over > others. > > So, basically I like your question, I don’t believe the current scenario > is satisfactory but unfortunately I confess I can’t offer any suggestions > of better scenarios. > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > > > On 1 Sep 2018, at 22:00, Pedro Duque Vieira > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > For JavaFX to start being, truly, a community project it is important > that > > it is perceived as a real community effort. Right now it's starting to > look > > more like it's changing hands, from being an Oracle project to being a > > Gluon project. > > > > I don't have anything against Gluon, I'd say the same if for instance, > > instead of Gluon it was JPro or Karakun, or whatever... > > > > Hosting the JavaFX docs, builds, installations, etc on a company owned > site > > or a company endorsed site sounds like a really bad idea. Which is what's > > happening right now. If it's to be a community project it should be owned > > by the community as a whole. As well as being perceived to be owned by > the > > community as a whole. > > > > Being a one company project will deter the contributions of other players > > in the JavaFX space. Other players that also offer consultancy services, > > and JavaFX products will have a big disadvantage towards the company > > hosting the JavaFX assets and downloads. At the very minimum think about > > the huge advantage this company will have in publicity when compared to > the > > others. > > > > A community project is a project where various players join efforts to > > mutually benefit each other. As soon as this starts being a project > that's > > benefiting one particular company more than the others it ceases to be a > > community project. > > > > I don't think that anyone would like to join in on the efforts in this > > scenario. > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- > > Pedro Duque Vieira - https://www.pixelduke.com >
