Thanks Nir.
I am very aware of the formal processes involved but also cognisant of the
considerable time/delays and "red tape" that can be an undesirable consequence
of such formality.
I'm also not a "hope for the best" kinda guy.
I think first we really need (and really hope) someone from
I don't mind giving it a go but I wouldn't like doing the work and then it
not getting implemented (if the result is a success).
Personally, I think that the first thing we should do is make a list of
what exactly it is we are trying to do if only to get a sense of the
magnitude and be sure we
Nir,
You're not "hijacking" anything - I think it's been established that this a
broader "3D API support" issue. In fact, even broader than that.
I'm only new on the JavaFX "scene" but I've looked through the history and
tried to analyse the present and anticipate the future.
It seems that
Some very old issues for this kind of change
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091063
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091656
One new comment on the latter issue suggesting to add new formats like
"Ogg/{Vorbis,Theora}, flac, matroska (MKV), Opus, VP8, 3GPP, GSM"
This would be
I don't want to hijack the WebGL discussion but since it rolled into the 3D
library territory anyway I'll give my 2 cents.
3D enhancement are indeed not planned for Java10 (at the minimum) and
indeed you can't bring your own shader (asked already at
...if only you could "bring your own" shader :-;
On 10 Sep 2017, at 21:04, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> (And yes, the current JavaFX 3D features are extremely rudimentary and not
>> particularly useful. I don't expect them to be ever enhanced. They're
>> effectively "frozen". It's
>
> (And yes, the current JavaFX 3D features are extremely rudimentary and not
> particularly useful. I don't expect them to be ever enhanced. They're
> effectively "frozen". It's a harsh call but I think they were a mistake
> from day one. We need a completely different alternative).
>
I