Re: 8u40 is released / SB
Hi Tom! As a programmer I use SB for prototyping. I think the problem is, that designers really need a visual UI and CSS editor. Upcoming web-standards like Web Components and frameworks like Google Polymer really shine, when it comes to connection between programmers and designers. --Benjamin On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Tom Eugelink t...@tbee.org wrote: My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in Java. So the return on investment probably is fairly low and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
Re: 8u40 is released / SB
My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in Java. So the return on investment probably is fairly low and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
Re: 8u40 is released
Looks like Gluon is the Trolltech equivalent I just wished for - that was fast :-) I had a similar thought. Honestly this reminds me a bit more to JGoodies and the tools around it, but with a lot more. Looks good. Hope that Gluon takes the mobile ports for JavaFX and SceneBuilder to the next level and allow open-source contributions. Also noticed the support for Material design on Android. If you let me know when you have a public repository, I'll take a look at contributing an integration of UpdateFX and CrashFX. Why don't I know about these projects? They look very useful! :D Maybe I'm on the wrong communication channels. I'm also interested in making it more keyboardable, in particular shortcuts for wrapping/unwrapping would be useful and ability to insert controls based on an auto complete of the name. A keyboard shortcuts editor would be nice. I wish I could toggle the left and right panes with ALT-1 and ALT-2. A IntelliJ-esque action palette to insert controls would be very nice. --Benjamin
Re: 8u40 is released / SB
But what about Xcode GUI design? Android Studio GUI designer? QT Designer? … Am 05.03.2015 um 09:19 schrieb Tom Eugelink t...@tbee.org: My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in Java. So the return on investment probably is fairly low and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
Re: 8u40 is released / SB
And then there are GroovyFX and ScalaFX, which embed the declarative UI language in the host language. To me, FXML seems to be just compensation for the lack of expressiveness in Java. Tomas On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Doug Schaefer dschae...@qnx.com wrote: GUI builders are great for prototyping or helping you learn. But when the application gets complex I keep hearing developers throw them out. They start getting in the way. I think if you have a good API and a good declarative UI language, think QML not FXML, then you may find you don¹t really need a GUI builder. How may people are using GUI builders to create Web app UI¹s? Now web UIs are simpler, but maybe that¹s the point. And why not leave GUI builders to the tools vendors. They¹re hard to make and get right, especially of you don¹t have a revenue model to support the army of developers you need. Doug. Hmm, I wonder what React Native would look like with JavaFX and NashornŠ On 2015-03-05, 7:20 AM, Scott Palmer swpal...@gmail.com wrote: I would never consider for a second coding FXML directly. I have only tweaked it by hand occasionally after creating it with SceneBuilder. SB is an important selling point for JavaFX and should be included in the JDK, it shouldn't even be a separate download. Scott On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Tom Eugelink t...@tbee.org wrote: My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in Java. So the return on investment probably is fairly low and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
Re: 8u40 is released / SB
GUI builders are great for prototyping or helping you learn. But when the application gets complex I keep hearing developers throw them out. They start getting in the way. I think if you have a good API and a good declarative UI language, think QML not FXML, then you may find you don¹t really need a GUI builder. How may people are using GUI builders to create Web app UI¹s? Now web UIs are simpler, but maybe that¹s the point. And why not leave GUI builders to the tools vendors. They¹re hard to make and get right, especially of you don¹t have a revenue model to support the army of developers you need. Doug. Hmm, I wonder what React Native would look like with JavaFX and NashornŠ On 2015-03-05, 7:20 AM, Scott Palmer swpal...@gmail.com wrote: I would never consider for a second coding FXML directly. I have only tweaked it by hand occasionally after creating it with SceneBuilder. SB is an important selling point for JavaFX and should be included in the JDK, it shouldn't even be a separate download. Scott On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Tom Eugelink t...@tbee.org wrote: My two cents would be that maintaining a UI builder is an awful lot of work, while I expect that a lot of programmers won't be using SB because it always has limitations. Either with complex layouts or custom controls. Real programmers probably use FXML directly or even just code it in Java. So the return on investment probably is fairly low and thus the resources can be much better spent on the core. IMHO. On 5-3-2015 02:34, Mike Hearn wrote: I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon
Re: 8u40 is released
Hi Kevin, Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under the BSD license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of 8u40. I'm a bit confused what this means. People who want to use Scene Builder are expected to compile it themselves from now on? Does that really make sense? Presumably the idea here is that SB will be integrated into IDEs and will no longer have any purpose as a standalone app, but I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet - the last time I tried the SB integration into IntelliJ it was extremely basic and far below the experience of the dedicated app. As just one example, UI design benefits a lot from maximal screen space. IDE embeddings often don't provide that.
Re: 8u40 is released
Hi Emmanuel, jfx8u40/WebView (libjfxwebkit.so) doesn't link with icu lib, however it has that option and so it contains all the related headers which it nevertheless uses during the build process. UChar32 was defined as unsigned in older icu versions and it is still that in the jfx8u40/WebView sources. As to the failure you've encountered. It seems like you have libxml2 on your system which was compiled/installed with icu-enabled option. I'm afraid you should recompile it with icu disabled in order to build WebView. There's a similar issue reported against Qt WebKit port: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82824 Thanks, Anton. On 04.03.2015 17:50, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Anton Tarasov or Andrew Brygin might be able to provide an answer for you, although our effort recently has been focused on getting the updated C++11-based WebKit to build. -- Kevin Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi Kevin, I'm updating the OpenJFX package in Debian to the version 8u40-b25 and I get a compilation failure on WebKit: In file included from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/utypes.h:36:0, from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/ucnv_err.h:86, from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/ucnv.h:50, from /usr/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:31, from /usr/include/libxml2/libxml/parser.h:810, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/xml/XSLStyleSheet.h:32, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/xml/XSLTProcessor.h:29, from generated/JSXSLTProcessor.h:27, from generated/JSXSLTProcessor.cpp:25: /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/umachine.h:298:17: error: conflicting declaration ‘typedef int32_t UChar32’ typedef int32_t UChar32; ^ In file included from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/unicode/Unicode.h:36:0, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/text/ASCIIFastPath.h:31, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/text/WTFString.h:28, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/DateMath.h:54, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/webcorejava_pch.h:57: ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/unicode/java/UnicodeJava.h:24:18: note: previous declaration as ‘typedef uint32_t UChar32’ typedef uint32_t UChar32; ^ It seems UnicodeJava.h and UnicodeWchar.h define UChar32 as an unsigned int32 whereas icu defines it as a signed int32. Emmanuel Bourg
Re: 8u40 is released
That's great Johan, but .. what does this mean, exactly? Is SB effectively dead at this point? Short of some horrifically convoluted corporate politics I can't understand why Oracle would develop an application but not provide downloads of it. Does this mean SB won't be upgraded past 8u40? I mean - I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be surprised by this, and I thought I followed JFX development pretty closely. What's the story here? On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Johan Vos jo...@lodgon.com wrote: Oracle stated that they won't release new binaries for SceneBuilder, but since the code is open-source and BSD licensed, third parties and the Java Community in general can create binaries based on the SceneBuilder sources. This is what we did at Gluon (http://gluonhq.com), and the result can be downloaded at http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ This download is based on the latest 8u40 source code in OpenJFX. It includes the 8u40 Controls (e.g. Spinner, Dialogs). Hope this is helpful. - Johan 2015-03-04 16:31 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net: Hi Kevin, Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under the BSD license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of 8u40. I'm a bit confused what this means. People who want to use Scene Builder are expected to compile it themselves from now on? Does that really make sense? Presumably the idea here is that SB will be integrated into IDEs and will no longer have any purpose as a standalone app, but I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet - the last time I tried the SB integration into IntelliJ it was extremely basic and far below the experience of the dedicated app. As just one example, UI design benefits a lot from maximal screen space. IDE embeddings often don't provide that.
Re: 8u40 is released
which future should it be? IoT? Am 04.03.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Felix Bembrick felix.bembr...@gmail.com: JavaFX has a future but perhaps not the one we were all expecting or hoping for. On 5 March 2015 at 09:18, Tobias Bley t...@ultramixer.com mailto:t...@ultramixer.com wrote: In the past there were 2 bad signs from Oracle concerning JavaFX: end of support for JavaFX on RaspPi and SceneBuilder… So does have JavaFX a future? Tobi Am 04.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net mailto:m...@plan99.net: That's great Johan, but .. what does this mean, exactly? Is SB effectively dead at this point? Short of some horrifically convoluted corporate politics I can't understand why Oracle would develop an application but not provide downloads of it. Does this mean SB won't be upgraded past 8u40? I mean - I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be surprised by this, and I thought I followed JFX development pretty closely. What's the story here? On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Johan Vos jo...@lodgon.com mailto:jo...@lodgon.com wrote: Oracle stated that they won't release new binaries for SceneBuilder, but since the code is open-source and BSD licensed, third parties and the Java Community in general can create binaries based on the SceneBuilder sources. This is what we did at Gluon (http://gluonhq.com http://gluonhq.com/), and the result can be downloaded at http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ This download is based on the latest 8u40 source code in OpenJFX. It includes the 8u40 Controls (e.g. Spinner, Dialogs). Hope this is helpful. - Johan 2015-03-04 16:31 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net mailto:m...@plan99.net: Hi Kevin, Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under the BSD license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of 8u40. I'm a bit confused what this means. People who want to use Scene Builder are expected to compile it themselves from now on? Does that really make sense? Presumably the idea here is that SB will be integrated into IDEs and will no longer have any purpose as a standalone app, but I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet - the last time I tried the SB integration into IntelliJ it was extremely basic and far below the experience of the dedicated app. As just one example, UI design benefits a lot from maximal screen space. IDE embeddings often don't provide that.
Re: 8u40 is released
Hey Jonathan, If you let us know who does make these decisions, we will happily repeat our questions to them :) Mark Reinhold perhaps? I mean, I appreciate that GUI libraries are probably not a prime driver of sales for Oracle, but as an enterprise focused company I assume management understands the value of being able to do long term planning around any tool or API. WRT 8u60+9, I read that 8u60 is going to be a bug fix only release with no new features at all. I don't know how to read that, as JavaFX does not seem especially buggy to me, and previously it seemed that rich text might feature. It feels that manpower put on JFX is indeed being reduced. Perhaps a business opportunity for someone who wants to be the next Trolltech :-)
Re: 8u40 is released
2349 Unresolved Bugs seems buggy to me: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/issues/?jql=issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved Any software project always has lots of unresolved issues in the issue tracker, though, especially something as large as a UI toolkit. Qt has about 15,000 open issues: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-628?jql=status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20Accepted%2C%20Reported) Actually 2349 bugs feels suspiciously low to me . I suspect it reflects more that the JFX user community is quite small rather than the true number of bugs in the product :-) I certainly encountered a few bugs when writing my own app, but they were all easy to work around and so far they were all fixed in 8u40. Perhaps my experience is atypical. I agree that SB is probably something that can be well maintained by the community at this point, especially with commercial backing from Gluon.
Re: 8u40 is released
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote: WRT 8u60+9, I read that 8u60 is going to be a bug fix only release with no new features at all. I don't know how to read that, as JavaFX does not seem especially buggy to me, 2349 Unresolved Bugs seems buggy to me: https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/issues/?jql=issuetype%20%3D%20Bug%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved I personally don't mind if higher-level projects like SceneBuilder are handed to the community, as long as Oracle keeps maintaining a healthy and _portable_ core.
Re: 8u40 is released
This is what we did at Gluon (http://gluonhq.com), and the result can be downloaded at http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ Thanks Johan! Looks like Gluon is the Trolltech equivalent I just wished for - that was fast :-) From your blog post, it sounds like you're planning to fork SB or at least maintain a patch set on top of it. So I guess you have reason to believe SB upstream is a dead project at this point? If you let me know when you have a public repository, I'll take a look at contributing an integration of UpdateFX and CrashFX. Users would still need to re-download the app to upgrade the JVM across major releases but other changes could be pushed easily to all users in the background. I'm also interested in making it more keyboardable, in particular shortcuts for wrapping/unwrapping would be useful and ability to insert controls based on an auto complete of the name.
Re: 8u40 is released
To add fuel to the fire, I have seen issues in the JIRA going from assigned to unassigned, for multiple assignees. Also, Steve is now (back) at IBM: https://ca.linkedin.com/in/stevenorthover. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Tobias Bley t...@ultramixer.com wrote: which future should it be? IoT? Am 04.03.2015 um 23:29 schrieb Felix Bembrick felix.bembr...@gmail.com: JavaFX has a future but perhaps not the one we were all expecting or hoping for. On 5 March 2015 at 09:18, Tobias Bley t...@ultramixer.com mailto:t...@ultramixer.com wrote: In the past there were 2 bad signs from Oracle concerning JavaFX: end of support for JavaFX on RaspPi and SceneBuilder… So does have JavaFX a future? Tobi Am 04.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net mailto:m...@plan99.net: That's great Johan, but .. what does this mean, exactly? Is SB effectively dead at this point? Short of some horrifically convoluted corporate politics I can't understand why Oracle would develop an application but not provide downloads of it. Does this mean SB won't be upgraded past 8u40? I mean - I don't think it's unreasonable of me to be surprised by this, and I thought I followed JFX development pretty closely. What's the story here? On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Johan Vos jo...@lodgon.com mailto:jo...@lodgon.com wrote: Oracle stated that they won't release new binaries for SceneBuilder, but since the code is open-source and BSD licensed, third parties and the Java Community in general can create binaries based on the SceneBuilder sources. This is what we did at Gluon (http://gluonhq.com http://gluonhq.com/), and the result can be downloaded at http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ http://gluonhq.com/products/downloads/ This download is based on the latest 8u40 source code in OpenJFX. It includes the 8u40 Controls (e.g. Spinner, Dialogs). Hope this is helpful. - Johan 2015-03-04 16:31 GMT+01:00 Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net mailto:m...@plan99.net: Hi Kevin, Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under the BSD license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of 8u40. I'm a bit confused what this means. People who want to use Scene Builder are expected to compile it themselves from now on? Does that really make sense? Presumably the idea here is that SB will be integrated into IDEs and will no longer have any purpose as a standalone app, but I'm not sure we're ready to go there yet - the last time I tried the SB integration into IntelliJ it was extremely basic and far below the experience of the dedicated app. As just one example, UI design benefits a lot from maximal screen space. IDE embeddings often don't provide that.
Re: 8u40 is released
Scene Builder source code is available in the OpenJFX repo under the BSD license, but separate binaries are no longer being released as of 8u40. See: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/sb2download-216.html -- Kevin ngalarn...@abinitio.com wrote: Hurray! Thank you all for the good work. Do you know when the corresponding Scene Builder release will be? It would be great to get support for the new widgets. Also, the Scene Builder download page warns against using 2.0 for security reasons. Neil From:Kevin Rushforth kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com To:openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Date:03/03/2015 05:14 PM Subject:8u40 is released Sent by:openjfx-dev openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net For those who haven't seen yet, the JDK 8u40 release is now live and ready for download. -- Kevin NOTICE /from Ab Initio: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is subject to confidentiality obligations or is legally privileged, and sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege. If received in error, please notify the sender, delete this email, and make no further use, disclosure, or distribution. /
Re: 8u40 is released
Anton Tarasov or Andrew Brygin might be able to provide an answer for you, although our effort recently has been focused on getting the updated C++11-based WebKit to build. -- Kevin Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Hi Kevin, I'm updating the OpenJFX package in Debian to the version 8u40-b25 and I get a compilation failure on WebKit: In file included from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/utypes.h:36:0, from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/ucnv_err.h:86, from /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/ucnv.h:50, from /usr/include/libxml2/libxml/encoding.h:31, from /usr/include/libxml2/libxml/parser.h:810, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/xml/XSLStyleSheet.h:32, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/xml/XSLTProcessor.h:29, from generated/JSXSLTProcessor.h:27, from generated/JSXSLTProcessor.cpp:25: /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/unicode/umachine.h:298:17: error: conflicting declaration ‘typedef int32_t UChar32’ typedef int32_t UChar32; ^ In file included from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/unicode/Unicode.h:36:0, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/text/ASCIIFastPath.h:31, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/text/WTFString.h:28, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/DateMath.h:54, from ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WebCore/webcorejava_pch.h:57: ../../../../src/main/native/Source/WTF/wtf/unicode/java/UnicodeJava.h:24:18: note: previous declaration as ‘typedef uint32_t UChar32’ typedef uint32_t UChar32; ^ It seems UnicodeJava.h and UnicodeWchar.h define UChar32 as an unsigned int32 whereas icu defines it as a signed int32. Emmanuel Bourg
Re: 8u40 is released
Hurray! Thank you all for the good work. Do you know when the corresponding Scene Builder release will be? It would be great to get support for the new widgets. Also, the Scene Builder download page warns against using 2.0 for security reasons. Neil From: Kevin Rushforth kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net, Date: 03/03/2015 05:14 PM Subject:8u40 is released Sent by:openjfx-dev openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net For those who haven't seen yet, the JDK 8u40 release is now live and ready for download. -- Kevin NOTICE from Ab Initio: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is subject to confidentiality obligations or is legally privileged, and sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege. If received in error, please notify the sender, delete this email, and make no further use, disclosure, or distribution.
