Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

I agree with you on the point that desktops are here to stay, but my point was that if JavaFX is only ever going to viable on such desktops then it is not cross platform because by far the biggest focus for commercial software development companies currently is "post PC" devices like mobiles, ta

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

The question is: How does perform JavaFX in comparison to e.g. Xamarian? > Am 19.04.2016 um 13:14 schrieb Scott Palmer : > > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:18 AM, Felix Bembrick wrote: > >> >> Let's face it, without highly optimised AOT, Java and/or JavaFX on mobiles >> is simply not viable which

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:18 AM, Felix Bembrick wrote: > > Let's face it, without highly optimised AOT, Java and/or JavaFX on mobiles is > simply not viable which in turn implies that JavaFX itself is not even worth > looking at... RIP. Let's not go crazy. JavaFX is still the best bet for desk

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

Well I did ask Johan what AOT they are going to use instead of RoboVM but there has not be a response yet. Let's face it, without highly optimised AOT, Java and/or JavaFX on mobiles is simply not viable which in turn implies that JavaFX itself is not even worth looking at... RIP. But I take Jo

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

Hi, in my opinion the abandonment of RoboVM is a very big step back for Java on Mobile because there is NO real alternative to RoboVM. So it has definitely a big impact on Gluon and JavaFX on Mobile. Gluon uses RoboVM 1.8 - and old version of RoboVM which will be not developed anymore. So no se

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

Seems there are more forks out there.. https://github.com/bugvm/bugvm Sven On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Felix Bembrick wrote: > Good luck to you Erik. I totally agree with you and hope you succeed. If > there's any way I can help, I will do just that. > > Felix > > > On 19 Apr 2016, at 04:

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

Good luck to you Erik. I totally agree with you and hope you succeed. If there's any way I can help, I will do just that. Felix > On 19 Apr 2016, at 04:39, Erik De Rijcke wrote: > > I'm currently looking if I can get some robovm fork kickstarted. ( > https://github.com/FlexoVM/flexovm/issues/4

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

I'm currently looking if I can get some robovm fork kickstarted. ( https://github.com/FlexoVM/flexovm/issues/4 ). It's really a shame that for this one time Java has a real nice aot llvm compiler, MS kills it. Being able to compile Java (or any bytecode language) to a native, fast and small execut

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

I wonder what the performance of alternatives to RoboVM is like... > On 19 Apr 2016, at 03:09, Steve Hannah wrote: > > https://twitter.com/GluonHQ/status/721784242565357568 > > The Gluon blog post from a few months ago (when @robovm was acquired by >> @xamarin) is still almost entirely relevant

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

So what AOT will you be using now? The last RoboVM AOT or something else? > On 19 Apr 2016, at 03:15, Johan Vos wrote: > > Indeed, this doesn't have any impact on JavaFX. > The Gluon tools are currently using the RoboVM AOT 1.8, which was the last > open-source version. > > RoboVM delivered a

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

Indeed, this doesn't have any impact on JavaFX. The Gluon tools are currently using the RoboVM AOT 1.8, which was the last open-source version. RoboVM delivered a whole set of products, including an AOT, but also a system that provides some JNI functionality, a set of bindings that create Java cla

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

https://twitter.com/GluonHQ/status/721784242565357568 The Gluon blog post from a few months ago (when @robovm was acquired by > @xamarin) is still almost entirely relevant > http://gluonhq.com/gluon-supports-multiple-jvms/ On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Felix Bembrick wrote: > So what do th

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

So what do they use instead? > On 19 Apr 2016, at 02:52, Steve Hannah wrote: > > According to Gluon, they're not impacted by this. > https://twitter.com/GluonHQ/status/721784161728471041 > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Felix Bembrick > wrote: > >> I just read this article which sta

Re: What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

According to Gluon, they're not impacted by this. https://twitter.com/GluonHQ/status/721784161728471041 On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Felix Bembrick wrote: > I just read this article which states that RoboVM is effectively "shutting > down". > > https://www.voxxed.com/blog/2016/04/robovm/ >

What does this mean for the future of JavaFX on iOS?

I just read this article which states that RoboVM is effectively "shutting down". https://www.voxxed.com/blog/2016/04/robovm/ Given that they seem to be a critical part of the puzzle that is making JavaFX viable on mobile platforms, what does this actually mean for that goal? Is there an alter

Re: Future of JavaFX

indly ask to review the list of essentials that I sent > you some months back by personal mail. > > -Markus > > -Original Message- > From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf > Of Kevin Rushforth > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015 01:29

RE: Future of JavaFX

ginal Message- From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Rushforth Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015 01:29 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX Just to chime in on a couple of points that have been raised in this discussion...

RE: Future of JavaFX

Agreed. -Original Message- From: Phil Race [mailto:philip.r...@oracle.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015 19:39 To: Markus KARG; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX As Kevin already said, you won't get anywhere by discussing that on *this* list. It is o

RE: Future of JavaFX

35 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX On 02.12.2015 18:45, Markus KARG wrote: > I wouldn't bother you if I wouldn't have met those people and listened to > their ideas, BTW. One type of ideas one can regularly see in open source communities is 'someone

Re: Future of JavaFX

om: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Mark Fortner Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015 00:12 To: Florian Brunner Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX I think the first hurdle is to get people to sign the CLA. Having to print a copy, sign it,

RE: Future of JavaFX

ntributing small contributions or even report bugs. -Markus -Original Message- From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Mark Fortner Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Dezember 2015 00:12 To: Florian Brunner Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaF

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 02.12.2015 18:45, Markus KARG wrote: I wouldn't bother you if I wouldn't have met those people and listened to their ideas, BTW. One type of ideas one can regularly see in open source communities is 'someone else should do X', where X can range from 'change their workflow to suit mine', ov

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 03.12.2015 01:35, Scott Palmer wrote: The issue I have with that is the timeframe in terms of getting those fixes in a JRE that I can ship with. Assuming that you are talking about the Oracle JRE specifically, please see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/8u-rel

Re: Future of JavaFX

Thanks Chien and Kevin. I will recheck my issues with JDK 9 early access and report back, probably here because I cannot comment in JBS. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Chien Yang wrote: > On 12/2/15, 4:46 AM, Robert Krüger wrote: > >> How much of a priority are quality issues, >> especially on

Re: Future of JavaFX

gs.openjdk.java.net the enough rights so he/ she can join on the >> discussion >> in the issue >> >> Any better way? >> >> >> -Florian >> >> Am Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015, 17.16:46 schrieb Tomas Mikula: >>> The proposed s

Re: Future of JavaFX

. Only few > > > contributors > > > are willing to stay for long time, and only for those it makes sense to > > > have the complex rules. For example, I do not see why we cannot have a > > > dedicated full time "Community Officer" who simply collects

Re: Future of JavaFX

gt; > Too bad that Github cannot fork mercurial repos. It would be > interesting > > > to see the real number of pull requests such a fork would gain. Maybe > > > Dalibor is right and we would end up with zero? ;-) > > > > > > -Markus > > > > > > >

Re: Future of JavaFX

such a fork would gain. Maybe > > Dalibor is right and we would end up with zero? ;-) > > > > -Markus > > > > > > > > From: Tomas Mikula [mailto:tomas.mik...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 23:05 > > To: Markus KARG >

Re: Future of JavaFX

I'll add a comment to the bug report. -- Kevin Ilya Buziuk wrote: Hello, guys If the question about bugs that are considered important was risen I would say that for me (as a JBoss Tools developer who uses JavaFx for cordova ripple based mobile emulator) the regres

Re: Future of JavaFX

Hello, guys If the question about bugs that are considered important was risen I would say that for me (as a JBoss Tools developer who uses JavaFx for cordova ripple based mobile emulator) the regression JDK-8090205 is ut

Re: Future of JavaFX

To add to this, if there is an existing open bug that you consider important, please let us know. -- Kevin Chien Yang wrote: On 12/2/15, 4:46 AM, Robert Krüger wrote: How much of a priority are quality issues, especially on the Mac (which clearly is a second-class citizen as far as JavaFX is

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 12/2/15, 4:46 AM, Robert Krüger wrote: How much of a priority are quality issues, especially on the Mac (which clearly is a second-class citizen as far as JavaFX is concerned)? Are things like flashing when opening Stages, bad rendering performance, broken media APIs etc. an issue? We have bee

RE: Future of JavaFX

Dezember 2015 10:46 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX On 01.12.2015 22:58, Markus KARG wrote: > I actually talk about those people that *did not* invest the time to > contribute Making high quality contributions to open source projects takes a considerable amount of humbl

Re: Future of JavaFX

I absolutely agree. While we are committing to many Github projects it’s too hard to do that for JavaFX via bugs.sun.com…. Github is a modern way of developing together. The „bugs.sun.com“ way is like using a candle instead of electric light… Best Regards, Tobi > Am 02.12.2015 um 13:32 schrie

Re: Future of JavaFX

Kevin, thanks for sharing those plans. How much of a priority are quality issues, especially on the Mac (which clearly is a second-class citizen as far as JavaFX is concerned)? Are things like flashing when opening Stages, bad rendering performance, broken media APIs etc. an issue? As far as my co

Re: Future of JavaFX

Please, you're really oversimplifying things, I'm not sure if intentionally. It's not just coding. In my company I pay people serious money who do testing and file reproducible test cases with a qualified analysis of what they observed and what may be the problem and that's what I have done in the

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 02.12.2015 10:44, Ryan Jaeb wrote: Which is it - discuss or adoption-discuss? adoption-discuss is for general discussion about bundling and aiding OpenJDK collaboration, discuss is for general discussion about the OpenJDK Community. cheers, dalibor topic -- Dalibo

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 01.12.2015 22:58, Markus KARG wrote: I actually talk about those people that *did not* invest the time to contribute Making high quality contributions to open source projects takes a considerable amount of humbleness, time and effort. People who aren't able or willing to invest the necessa

Re: Future of JavaFX

Which is it - discuss or adoption-discuss? I really hope someone jumps over and restarts the JBS policy conversation. I tried when the JIRA change was initially announced and my misunderstanding of some key facts undermined the message I was trying to get across. I also think it may have devalued

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 02.12.2015 01:29, Kevin Rushforth wrote: Please be aware that as part of the OpenJDK community, we are bound by the processes of the OpenJDK, including the need for a signed OCA in order to contribute, and before you can get a JBS account. If you are dissatisfied with those processes and pol

Re: Future of JavaFX

Just to chime in on a couple of points that have been raised in this discussion... * We are interested in working with the OpenJFX community to improve JavaFX. In particular: if you find a bug, file it (via bugs.java.com if you don't have a JBS account); if you want to contribute a patch to fi

Re: Future of JavaFX

Felix Bembrick wrote: >it makes them no money >In my opinion, JavaFX should be jettisoned from the JDK Like AWT or Swing, it plays in favor of Java adoption by people looking for a portable way of doing something as simple as lighting up a pixel - which are still, after all these years, quite sca

RE: Future of JavaFX

Volkswagen is doing a lot of research with JavaFX. For more than two years now, it is their technology of choice for rapid HMI prototyping. The have developed a framework–namely Tappas–entirely written in Java/JavaFX, which already runs on embedded hardware, featuring a 3D map renderer.[1][2][3] P

Re: Future of JavaFX

m: Tomas Mikula [mailto:tomas.mik...@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 23:05 To: Markus KARG Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX The review process for external contributions does not even have to be different from the internal review process. There can be a virtual organiz

Re: Future of JavaFX

; Dalibor is right and we would end up with zero? ;-) > > -Markus > > > > From: Tomas Mikula [mailto:tomas.mik...@gmail.com] > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 23:05 > To: Markus KARG > Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > > > >

RE: Future of JavaFX

:05 To: Markus KARG Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX The review process for external contributions does not even have to be different from the internal review process. There can be a virtual organization on GitHub called "Oracle CLA signatories". Af

Re: Future of JavaFX

tors. > > -Original Message- > From: Hervé Girod [mailto:herve.gi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 20:19 > To: Markus KARG > Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > > Things are not different for Apache projects. Google does

RE: Future of JavaFX

penjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX On 01.12.2015 20:13, Markus KARG wrote: > anymore or AT LEAST vote and comment on existing tickets. Is the JavaFX team > clear about how many contributors you lost by that policy? I think the number you're looking for is zero, jud

RE: Future of JavaFX

ubject: Re: Future of JavaFX Things are not different for Apache projects. Google does not accept any external contributions. The Linux kernel development is very tightly controlled. We should stop considering that widespread open source policies are only a problem with JavaFX. These policies ar

Re: Future of JavaFX

the reality there outside of Oracle. People stopped > > reporting bugs! This is a real problem for JavaFX. You should act. Now. > > > > -Markus > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjd

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 01.12.2015 20:13, Markus KARG wrote: anymore or AT LEAST vote and comment on existing tickets. Is the JavaFX team clear about how many contributors you lost by that policy? I think the number you're looking for is zero, judging by the number of 'Contributed-by' changesets in the rt reposito

Re: Future of JavaFX

> > > > -Original Message- > From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of > dalibor topic > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2015 19:06 > To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > >> On 01.12.2015 18:35

RE: Future of JavaFX

2015 19:06 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX On 01.12.2015 18:35, Markus KARG wrote: > With respect to TeamFX, the better question is: Are there plans to further > open the project so third party has an easier channel to contribute without > the hazzle of co

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 01.12.2015 18:35, Markus KARG wrote: With respect to TeamFX, the better question is: Are there plans to further open the project so third party has an easier channel to contribute without the hazzle of contributor agreements "Like many other open-source communities, the OpenJDK Community req

RE: Future of JavaFX

...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Casall, Alexander Sent: Montag, 30. November 2015 23:55 To: Donald Smith; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Mailing Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX Don, thanks for your important contribution to this thread. What exactly means oracle continues to develop on fx? What is the roadmap

RE: Future of JavaFX

: Montag, 30. November 2015 22:53 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX There indeed seems to be negative buzz around JavaFX, and Oracle stopping with promoting it, is indeed confusing, at the very least. And it is noticeable everywhere; without wanting to wine, I really do

RE: Future of JavaFX

Cc: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX The company where I work is using and developing with JavaFX. We're not in production yet but have already some testing embedded systems with it running on a [possible]customer site. The main drawback is not having the same perfor

Re: Future of JavaFX

How timely as I just posted that response and Dalibor's news just arrived in the my inbox within 1 minute ... #TLDR JDK 9 will arrive 6 months later than expected 23rd March 2017 ... so FX people go to work, really go work. On 1 December 2015 at 17:12, Peter Pilgrim wrote: > Hi All > > On 1 De

Re: Future of JavaFX

Hi All On 1 December 2015 at 13:27, Johan Vos wrote: > Hi Dirk, all, > > Although this person from Codename One attacked me a few times before > (using words like we're selling snake oil), I tried to ignore it. This is > very uncommon for the Java community. In the Java community, we have > diffe

Re: Future of JavaFX

On 01.12.2015 14:22, Mario Torre wrote: Btw, as a general note, I always find discussing about how impossible any contribution is *without* first trying to contribute anything a real waste of time. For mailing list environments with a bad signal/noise ratio, I suggest applying https://joeyh.

Re: Future of JavaFX

I agree with Johan that there is a rich and vibrant JavaFX community and most examples of its adoption are behind corporate firewalls. But Johan, why would Oracle build a "JavaFX ecosystem" within Oracle and spend millions on a product that earns them nothing? Surely that is not sustainable. An

Re: Future of JavaFX

As far as I know, all of JavaFX is open source indeed. If someone wants to make a big change, e.g. create another rendering pipeline, it is very well possible to do so. I would recommend submitting that work back to OpenJFX, by following the same procedures for committing to the OpenJDK project, b

Re: Future of JavaFX

Hi Dirk, all, Although this person from Codename One attacked me a few times before (using words like we're selling snake oil), I tried to ignore it. This is very uncommon for the Java community. In the Java community, we have different views, we prefer different technologies, but we show at least

Re: Future of JavaFX

2015-12-01 14:03 GMT+01:00 Felix Bembrick : > Is it really true that *all* of JavaFX is open source? > > Even if it is, if I wanted to say take some aspects of the product in a > radical new direction, wouldn't someone from Oracle have to approve the > changes? > > If yes, then only Oracle can br

Re: Future of JavaFX

Is it really true that *all* of JavaFX is open source? Even if it is, if I wanted to say take some aspects of the product in a radical new direction, wouldn't someone from Oracle have to approve the changes? If yes, then only Oracle can bring the big enhancements that are necessary which we kno

Re: Future of JavaFX

Hi All I find it remarkable to see that this debate about innovation-versus-maintenance is similar to the one going on in the Java EE space. See https://java.net/projects/javaee-spec/lists/users/archive/2015-01/message/48 - Many Java EE experts, including myself, are now looking at the application

Re: Future of JavaFX

Well, it is the official Swing replacement but look at Java 9 and you won't see many if any enhancements to JavaFX. The point is Oracle has no interest in desktop software other than maintaining any existing support contracts. I don't even think Oracle wants JavaFX so it would be better for eve

Re: Future of JavaFX

If it is not a part of OpenJDK/Oracle JDK it will not work. Whether Oracle itself maintains the code doesn't really matter I think, but they have to put support and development in it. To me another downside if Oracle would suspend further development is that any statements made by Oracle se

Re: Future of JavaFX

gt; > I think the solution could be: > - more developers (even in India :-) ) > - make OpenJFX to a real open source project > > - Alex > > From: Felix Bembrick > Sent: 01.12.15, 03:00 > To: Casall, Alexander > Cc: Donald Smith, openjfx mailing list > Subject:

RE: Future of JavaFX

From: Felix Bembrick Sent: 01.12.15, 03:00 To: Casall, Alexander Cc: Donald Smith, openjfx mailing list Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX The problem is that JavaFX is not used in any Oracle products (whereas Swing is), it makes them no money and it fact they are constantly bleeding while maintain

Re: Future of JavaFX

e core question is, are there any plans to put more ressources on fx? > > - Alex > > > From: Donald Smith > Sent: 30.11.15, 17:35 > To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Mailing > Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX > Oracle is still committed to JavaFX and it will still be around

Re: Future of JavaFX

ether this is enought to move FX forward to engage more and more adopters. The core question is, are there any plans to put more ressources on fx? - Alex From: Donald Smith Sent: 30.11.15, 17:35 To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Mailing Subject: Re: Future of JavaFX Oracle is still committed to J

Re: Future of JavaFX

There indeed seems to be negative buzz around JavaFX, and Oracle stopping with promoting it, is indeed confusing, at the very least. And it is noticeable everywhere; without wanting to wine, I really do have a nice JavaFX / JFXtras presentation, but it being declined on all conferences for me i

Re: Future of JavaFX

The company where I work is using and developing with JavaFX. We're not in production yet but have already some testing embedded systems with it running on a [possible]customer site. The main drawback is not having the same performance running from X than running directly from framebuffer. By not u

Re: Future of JavaFX

I read this article as well some days ago. It has some very valid points, but all in all I think JavaFX is still the best option out there. That said I was quite surprised that I got confronted today with the very same article by colleagues of mine who are in charge with company-wide adoption of

Re: Future of JavaFX

Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Dirk @ Google wrote: > > Companies like the one in question need to know if something will be > supported. „Not discontinued“ is not good enough for them. > > Dirk > >> Am 30.11.2015 um 18:20 schrieb Tomas Mikula : >> >> The same blog pos

Re: Future of JavaFX

Companies like the one in question need to know if something will be supported. „Not discontinued“ is not good enough for them. Dirk > Am 30.11.2015 um 18:20 schrieb Tomas Mikula : > > The same blog post of Shay says that "Oracle never discontinues products." At > least not officially. So ther

Re: Future of JavaFX

The same blog post of Shay says that "Oracle never discontinues products." At least not officially. So there you have that. Given that the biggest achievement of JavaFX 9 will be if old things keep working in JDK 9, I wouldn't expect any new exciting JavaFX developments coming from Oracle. On Mon

Re: Future of JavaFX

Oracle is still committed to JavaFX and it will still be around for a while. As of 7u6 we bundled JavaFX with the Oracle JDK, we've open sourced 100% of the code, we continue developing for it, etc. I understand that while there is both Swing and JavaFX available that people will continue to

Re: Future of JavaFX

My humble opinion is that what should happen to stop this FUD once and for all is that JavaFX becomes finally part of OpenJDK (as in same codebase and same build infrastructure) and a formal part of the Java API. I'm sure this will happen eventually and everything seems to go toward this goal, but

Future of JavaFX

Hi there, there has been quite a shake-up in the JavaFX community last week when Shay Almog (Codename One) first responded to a blog of mine (dlemmermann.wordpress.com) with a lot of negative comments regarding JavaFX and its future. He then followed up with a long blog asking the question „Sh