Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-24 Thread Michael Paus
Am 23.09.17 um 16:14 schrieb Mark Fortner: I must have missed the bit where you described a proposed roadmap. Me too. I think for the most part I've seen JavaFX used as a means of keeping older Swing-based projects alive. In the enterprise, those projects are dwindling, in part because people

AW: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-24 Thread Thorsten Fischer
+1 I‘d too like to see some (coordinated) movement in the JavaFX area. Greetings & have a nice weekend, Thorsten Von: John-Val Rose Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. September 2017 12:43 An: Mark Fortner Cc: Nir Lisker; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net Mailing Betreff: Re: OpenJFX initiative Hi Mark

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-24 Thread John-Val Rose
Hi Mark, I didn't actually "describe a proposed roadmap"; I merely questioned why there doesn't appear to be one. What does that mean? Well, it could mean that one exists but that Oracle prefers to not make it public. It could mean that their still developing one. Or it could mean that the

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-23 Thread Mark Fortner
I must have missed the bit where you described a proposed roadmap. I think for the most part I've seen JavaFX used as a means of keeping older Swing-based projects alive. In the enterprise, those projects are dwindling, in part because people just rebuild them as web applications. It's easier to

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread John-Val Rose
Probably, but JEPs can take a lot of time from start to finish and time is itself perhaps the biggest enemy that JavaFX is facing. And how many JEPs are being initiated by the Oracle JavaFX team themselves? I mean for the specific purpose of *true* innovation? On 23 September 2017 at 10:24, Nir

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread Nir Lisker
I don't have any answer to those questions. A JEP is the only thing I can think of. On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, John-Val Rose wrote: > Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has > demonstrated. > > But, I think it's a bit of an over

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread John-Val Rose
Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has demonstrated. But, I think it's a bit of an over simplification. How do I know if *my* innovation (of say 9 months of effort) is "high-quality code that makes OpenJFX better"? I can do my best to write high-quality code but what

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread Nir Lisker
> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? What he said here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2017-September/020801.html . On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:08 AM, John-Val Rose wrote: > The concept of “innovation” no longer seems to apply to

Re: OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread John-Val Rose
The concept of “innovation” no longer seems to apply to JavaFX, at least not from Oracle’s perspective. If you read the official list of changes in the just-released Java 9, AWT (yes, AWT) has more changes than JavaFX and even then the only significant change is to make it Jigsaw compatible.

OpenJFX initiative

2017-09-22 Thread Nir Lisker
I didn't see any update on the idea for our initiative. Are we still waiting for a reply from Oracle or do we go with Johan Vos's experience? I think that the least we can do without putting any work into this is have a semi-formal list of people who would like to work on this and a list of what