Here's a crazy idea for you guys: how about contributing to RoboVM instead
and maybe, just maybe, it would one day become more than a one man project?
;-) I'm of course very aware of the problem you're facing with JFX+iOS and
as I said to some of the Oracle guys at J1 I'm very tempted to making it
So what seems more feasible?
a) trying to get AOT inside OpenJDK (and get it maintained as part of the
OpenJDK process) - I am sure there must be some interest in this from an
IoT perspective.
b) Do not use OpenJDk class libraries and make people duplicate work at
some other place?
My personal
Hi,
Pardon me for saying this but I think Oracle is really handling this issue
very badly. I think very poor communication strategy is the real issue and
source of much frustration from the community.
I can see that Oracle is indeed working and assigning programming hours to
bringing JavaFX to
What we do know is that Oracle are working on something and that RoboVM
is already out there. We also know that RoboVM has serious limitations
such as being based on the Android class library, not supporting JDK 8 or
OpenJDK or invokedynamic etc. so is not really a viable solution at this
stage.
I'm sure the javafx team is doing a great job. My intention was not to put
that in question but to try to contribute further to this discussion.
Yes indeed oracle javafx team has fewer resources than what should be
preferred. We need to harvest the power of the community in the best way we
can to
There is more to this issue than simply JavaFX, iOS and Android. There
is a bigger picture here that involves the complex relationships
between Oracle, Apple and Google.
I think it is fair to say that we all have enormous respect for
Richard Bair and his team. It seems to me we should listen to
Oracle has a strict do-not-communicate-what-is-not-certain policy and I
actually commend them for it. Better to not communicate than make promises you
can't keep (I'm seeing the effect on that in many of the projects I'm asked to
assist). I think the urgency of mobile platforms is clear to
The question is: Is JavaFX for mobile a business for Oracle to make big money?
I suppose Oracle don’t believe in it. They believe in servers, cloud and the
„Internet of Things“ - that’s why they invest in Rasp.PI, Freescale, etc.
btw: With „Oracle“ I mean „the management of Oracle“, not the
Tobi, I don't think the issue of whether Oracle stands to make any money
out of JavaFX on mobiles is relevant as I discussed here
http://news.kynosarges.org/2013/10/10/javafx-on-ios-android/ and from which
this excerpt is taken:
*Now, on the point of little or no revenue coming Oracle’s way
There must be other reasons than money to do not support jfx on mobile because
oracle could also sell licenses for JFX on mobile.
I am tired to discuss this topic again and again. The point is: oracle does not
talk to the community. Richard tries to do it within the legal zone but that is
Yes, I agree, we need professional JVM ports for iOS, Android and Windows 8.
@Oracle: Could you set up the according project sites for these 3 platforms on
openjdk.java.net and document what exactly has to be done to port OpenJDK (at
least some kind of JavaFX compact profile e.g. without the
On 11/8/13 10:30 PM, Florian Brunner wrote:
@Oracle: Could you set up the according project sites for these 3 platforms
on openjdk.java.net
Please see http://openjdk.java.net/projects/ for how Projects work.
cheers,
dalibor topic
--
Oracle http://www.oracle.com
Dalibor Topic | Principal
I thought those JVM's were considered to be steps in progression toward
production JVM's? Though the push was toward full utility, I thought the
wagon train would circle back around to do optimization passes and so
forth? Remember we started from absolutely nothing and a question as to its
Hi Dalibor,
Thanks for the link. I've read now the process described at
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/#new-project
I'm fine to start the discussion (Step 0), but I think it would help if we
could find here some initial contributors/ leaders.
I, myself, won't be able to activly work on the
Totally, I think the normal process for this is to create a new OpenJDK
project, is it not? Can you take a look at the OpenJDK bylaws and report back
on the process? I think it would be awesome to do a port. Note that there are a
few OpenJDK ports already which have ARM support, you might want
ups, I made one mistake:
So both solutions use the real Java platform (=OpenJDK)!“ should be So both
solutions does not use the real Java platform (=OpenJDK)!“ ;)
Am 24.10.2013 um 08:41 schrieb Tobias Bley t...@ultramixer.com:
Hello to the community,
I read the last discussion about
16 matches
Mail list logo
