That seems like a very workable model to me.
-- Kevin
On 9/21/2018 12:56 PM, Johan Vos wrote:
Adding to #2: what we try to do with gluon is increasing adoption, allow
free development and usage, while still getting revenues to fund the
development.
All builds created for the latest version of
Adding to #2: what we try to do with gluon is increasing adoption, allow
free development and usage, while still getting revenues to fund the
development.
All builds created for the latest version of JavaFX are free to use (GPL +
CPE) for private and commercial usage.
With the Gluon JavaFX
I note that this isn't really the right forum for discussing the cost or
support model of JavaFX, but since the question has come up, I'll add my
2 cents.
The notion of requiring commercial vendors to pay to use the latest
feature release of JavaFX is impractical at best. As a
Well a technical enforcement mechanism is impractical, it's true. What
would be involved is a commercial license- an electronic thing like the
agreement you clicked on when you downloaded the JDK from Oracle. For
people using it commercially, you just make a payment through the usual
payment
Two items for us
1) focus on bug-free functionality over new features.
2) require a U.S. $50.00 a year fee per corporate entity for commercial
application usage. This is very reasonable and would finally secure
JavaFX's future as a development platform.
I feel without 2) above we will
Well, it is happy hear that JavaFX perform well in embedded, my original
intention isn’t condemn this video,
just for an example, though it is little ridiculous..
发件人: John-Val Rose
发送时间: 2018年9月21日 17:52
收件人: Johan Vos
抄送: a1032453...@163.com; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net
主题: Re: Talk about
That video is typical marketing “smoke and mirrors”.
With no access to the code of either app, it is simply unfair and disingenuous
to claim a performance advantage.
I am certain I could post an almost identical comparison video where the
results would be the complete opposite.
Yeah, good
>
> We can't defeat QT in performance, but we can defeat it at applicability
> and just don't get too far behind QT in performance. (bad example
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh6K-yEp_JY)
>
That video demonstrates the creator has absolutely no development skills in
Java, or he intentionally
First, I call JavaFX/OpenJFX JFX here.
I'm not an expert at JFX, I just read half of a book about JFX and be amazed by
it. Then I began to take some attention to JFX and be interested in it. JFX is
separated from JDK, well the news sound not so bad actually. The fact is JFX
isn't
