Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 just rebuild them as web applications.
It's easier to find that kind of talent, than it is to find desktop
developers.

The applications that remain desktop applications tend to require either
access to your desktop OS, or need near realtime access to streams of
audio, video, telemetry or financial data, which makes them ill-suited to
be web apps.

The reason that there's little interest in WebGL or 3d is because it
doesn't fit into one of the enterprise app buckets listed above.
I think there is a big misunderstanding here. At least for me the main 
reason
for asking for WebGL/OpenGL support is not an interest in fancy 3D 
animations

or such. For me it is just a matter of performance. Many modern web pages
heavily use WebGL for truly hardware accelerated 2D graphics. Just compare
the performance of the JavaFX WebView with the performance of any other
browser on the same machine when you display Google maps for example.
In WebView you end up in some castrated "light mode" with a bad user
experience just because WebView does not support WebGL.


I'm still surprised when people tell me that they have to write mobile apps
in Java and Swift and maintain two codebases, and when I point them to
JavaFX they admit they've never heard of it.

There needs to be better promotion of JavaFX in the Java developer
community. People need to compare the degree of complexity of web component
and PWA development against JavaFX to see the advantages. And there needs
to be a better deployment story than web start.
Definitely yes. But the community also has to realize the importance of 
a proper
system integration of programs written in JavaFX. For example it is 
still not

possible to get a proper system menu bar in JavaFX on the Mac. You have to
resort to external libraries for this like this: 
https://github.com/codecentric/NSMenuFX


People also expect to get software in a certain system specific way they 
are used to (installers etc.).
Now what does JavaFX do? The latest and greatest and long awaited Java 9 
is delivered with
a broken packager for the Mac although this regression has been known 
for many months.

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8179033
I can't package my app anymore for distribution which is quite 
frustrating when you have spent

a lot of time to overcome the other Java 9 hurdles.


A lot of that is simply promotion. It means reaching out to web development
and mobile development communities, and giving talks and demos.

Mark


On 22 Sep 2017 5:32 p.m., "John-Val Rose"  wrote:

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 Lisker  wrote:


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 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 exactly does "make
OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
such functionality.

Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
*before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
OpenJFX better" or be integrated?

​​
Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia

On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker  wrote:


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 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.

A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I

hope

that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.

So, innovation for JavaFX falls back 

AW: OpenJFX initiative

[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,

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 roadmap is an "all roads lead to Rome" scenario
where "Rome" is a euphemism for obsolescence.

If you look back the other way, i.e. the path travelled so far, you see
that there was one major change in the architecture of JavaFX between
versions 1 and 2.  Then they went straight to 8 (when they decided to align
the version numbers with JDK versions) but the changes were not really that
significant. Sure, they introduced *some* 3D features which are now
basically frozen and a couple of new controls etc. but mostly JavaFX 8 was
better than 2 because we got to use all the nifty new Java 8 language
features like lambdas and streams.

Then, if you look at JavaFX 9, it seems to be little more than a "jigsawed"
version of Java 8.

Now, look more closely at the time elapsed from JavaFX 2 to 9 and you
discover that between 2011 and 2017, there has been extremely limited
innovation and no significant changes or major new features.  Quite
frankly, I have never seen a product of this kind evolve so slowly.
Further, given that JavaFX entered the market and commenced it's slow
evolutionary path years (if not decades) behind established competitors,
this is the real *main* issue with JavaFX: it can't compete with something
like Qt on *any* basis including features, cross-platform support,
performance, professional support or user base, and that "gap" widens every
day.

(Forget about the web and HTML5. They/it are not a competitor to JavaFX).

So, as for you idea about "promotion" of JavaFX, you must factor in that if
you are trying to sell a product on the basis of any of the factors I just
mentioned, then Qt (and others like Xamarin) will trump JavaFX on every one
of them.  Further, both Qt and Xamarin (now owned and heavily financed by
Microsoft) have large companies behind them that actually generate revenue
from them (which is a GOOD thing because it ensures their survival and
enables rapid innovation).

Also, it is yet to be seen if JavaFX is even viable on mobile/tablet
platforms.  We will only know when Gluon release their Gluon VM.  So, it's
probably not wise to go around now promoting what is (at least right now)
still basically "vapourware".

(N.B. I *do* have full confidence in Johan Vos and Gluon to deliver on
their promise of a "blisteringly fast Java experience on iOS and Android" -
I just need to get my hands on it, as do all JavaFX developers).

As for me, well, all I want to do is contribute whatever I can to improve
JavaFX.  My comments are not meant as an "attack" on JavaFX (which is
actually something I love), but more a shot of reality and a "battle cry".
It's not too late for JavaFX but a lot of things need to change and change
soon for it be viable long term.

We have a vibrant community and I believe we need a mechanism to coordinate
all the passion and talent into an army of JavaFX soldiers, all with the
unified vision to "make JavaFX great again" (only without the fake news,
alternate facts, rhetoric, gaffes and, of course... no comb-overs).

Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia

On 24 September 2017 at 00:14, Mark Fortner <phidia...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 find that kind of talent, than it is to find desktop
> developers.
>
> The applications that remain desktop applications tend to require either
> access to your desktop OS, or need near realtime access to streams of
> audio, video, telemetry or financial data, which makes them ill-suited to
> be web apps.
>
> The reason that there's little interest in WebGL or 3d is because it
> doesn't fit into one of the enterprise app buckets listed above.
>
> I'm still surprised when people tell me that they have to write mobile
> apps in Java and Swift and maintain two codebases, and when I point them to
> JavaFX they admit they've never heard of it.
>
> There needs to be better promotion of JavaFX in the Java developer
> community. People need to

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 roadmap is an "all roads lead to Rome" scenario
where "Rome" is a euphemism for obsolescence.

If you look back the other way, i.e. the path travelled so far, you see
that there was one major change in the architecture of JavaFX between
versions 1 and 2.  Then they went straight to 8 (when they decided to align
the version numbers with JDK versions) but the changes were not really that
significant. Sure, they introduced *some* 3D features which are now
basically frozen and a couple of new controls etc. but mostly JavaFX 8 was
better than 2 because we got to use all the nifty new Java 8 language
features like lambdas and streams.

Then, if you look at JavaFX 9, it seems to be little more than a "jigsawed"
version of Java 8.

Now, look more closely at the time elapsed from JavaFX 2 to 9 and you
discover that between 2011 and 2017, there has been extremely limited
innovation and no significant changes or major new features.  Quite
frankly, I have never seen a product of this kind evolve so slowly.
Further, given that JavaFX entered the market and commenced it's slow
evolutionary path years (if not decades) behind established competitors,
this is the real *main* issue with JavaFX: it can't compete with something
like Qt on *any* basis including features, cross-platform support,
performance, professional support or user base, and that "gap" widens every
day.

(Forget about the web and HTML5. They/it are not a competitor to JavaFX).

So, as for you idea about "promotion" of JavaFX, you must factor in that if
you are trying to sell a product on the basis of any of the factors I just
mentioned, then Qt (and others like Xamarin) will trump JavaFX on every one
of them.  Further, both Qt and Xamarin (now owned and heavily financed by
Microsoft) have large companies behind them that actually generate revenue
from them (which is a GOOD thing because it ensures their survival and
enables rapid innovation).

Also, it is yet to be seen if JavaFX is even viable on mobile/tablet
platforms.  We will only know when Gluon release their Gluon VM.  So, it's
probably not wise to go around now promoting what is (at least right now)
still basically "vapourware".

(N.B. I *do* have full confidence in Johan Vos and Gluon to deliver on
their promise of a "blisteringly fast Java experience on iOS and Android" -
I just need to get my hands on it, as do all JavaFX developers).

As for me, well, all I want to do is contribute whatever I can to improve
JavaFX.  My comments are not meant as an "attack" on JavaFX (which is
actually something I love), but more a shot of reality and a "battle cry".
It's not too late for JavaFX but a lot of things need to change and change
soon for it be viable long term.

We have a vibrant community and I believe we need a mechanism to coordinate
all the passion and talent into an army of JavaFX soldiers, all with the
unified vision to "make JavaFX great again" (only without the fake news,
alternate facts, rhetoric, gaffes and, of course... no comb-overs).

Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia

On 24 September 2017 at 00:14, Mark Fortner  wrote:

> 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 find that kind of talent, than it is to find desktop
> developers.
>
> The applications that remain desktop applications tend to require either
> access to your desktop OS, or need near realtime access to streams of
> audio, video, telemetry or financial data, which makes them ill-suited to
> be web apps.
>
> The reason that there's little interest in WebGL or 3d is because it
> doesn't fit into one of the enterprise app buckets listed above.
>
> I'm still surprised when people tell me that they have to write mobile
> apps in Java and Swift and maintain two codebases, and when I point them to
> JavaFX they admit they've never heard of it.
>
> There needs to be better promotion of JavaFX in the Java developer
> community. People need to compare the degree of complexity of web component
> and PWA development against JavaFX to see the advantages. And there needs
> to be a better deployment story than web start.
>
> A lot of that is simply promotion. It means reaching out to web
> development and mobile development communities, and giving talks and demos.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2017 5:32 p.m., "John-Val Rose"  wrote:
>
> Probably, but JEPs can take a lot of time from start to finish and 

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 find that kind of talent, than it is to find desktop
developers.

The applications that remain desktop applications tend to require either
access to your desktop OS, or need near realtime access to streams of
audio, video, telemetry or financial data, which makes them ill-suited to
be web apps.

The reason that there's little interest in WebGL or 3d is because it
doesn't fit into one of the enterprise app buckets listed above.

I'm still surprised when people tell me that they have to write mobile apps
in Java and Swift and maintain two codebases, and when I point them to
JavaFX they admit they've never heard of it.

There needs to be better promotion of JavaFX in the Java developer
community. People need to compare the degree of complexity of web component
and PWA development against JavaFX to see the advantages. And there needs
to be a better deployment story than web start.

A lot of that is simply promotion. It means reaching out to web development
and mobile development communities, and giving talks and demos.

Mark


On 22 Sep 2017 5:32 p.m., "John-Val Rose"  wrote:

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 Lisker  wrote:

> 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 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 exactly does "make
>> OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
>> 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
>> such functionality.
>>
>> Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
>> *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
>> OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
>>
>> ​​
>> Graciously,
>>
>> John-Val Rose
>> Chief Scientist/Architect
>> Rosethorn Technology
>> Australia
>>
>> On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker  wrote:
>>
>>> > 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 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.

 A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
 introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
 Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I
hope
 that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.

 So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but
 is very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.

 I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
 “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”.
Note,
 that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?

 What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
 are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch
talent
 and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
 frequency.

 Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
 Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with
them
 and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
 doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
 possible.

 But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we
 get large-scale changes to happen?

 Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of
 individuals each trying to get some feature implemented in an
uncoordinated
 fashion.

 The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their 

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 Lisker  wrote:

> 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 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 exactly does "make
>> OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
>> 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
>> such functionality.
>>
>> Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
>> *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
>> OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
>>
>> ​​
>> Graciously,
>>
>> John-Val Rose
>> Chief Scientist/Architect
>> Rosethorn Technology
>> Australia
>>
>> On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker  wrote:
>>
>>> > 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 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.

 A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
 introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
 Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope
 that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.

 So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but
 is very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.

 I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
 “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note,
 that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?

 What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
 are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent
 and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
 frequency.

 Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
 Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them
 and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
 doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
 possible.

 But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we
 get large-scale changes to happen?

 Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of
 individuals each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated
 fashion.

 The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own
 perspective on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the
 community ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in
 general.

 I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that
 call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the
 moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises
 his efforts.

 That’s what businesses do.

 So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now*
 (even this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce
 everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward.

 That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward”
 rather than “sideways”.

 Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going
 backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...

 Graciously,

 John-Val Rose

 > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker  wrote:
 >
 > 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 features we would be 

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 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 exactly does "make
> OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
> 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
> such functionality.
>
> Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
> *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
> OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
>
> ​​
> Graciously,
>
> John-Val Rose
> Chief Scientist/Architect
> Rosethorn Technology
> Australia
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker  wrote:
>
>> > 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 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.
>>>
>>> A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
>>> introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
>>> Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope
>>> that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.
>>>
>>> So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but
>>> is very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.
>>>
>>> I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
>>> “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note,
>>> that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?
>>>
>>> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
>>> are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent
>>> and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
>>> frequency.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
>>> Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them
>>> and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
>>> doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get
>>> large-scale changes to happen?
>>>
>>> Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of
>>> individuals each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated
>>> fashion.
>>>
>>> The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own
>>> perspective on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the
>>> community ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in
>>> general.
>>>
>>> I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that
>>> call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the
>>> moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises
>>> his efforts.
>>>
>>> That’s what businesses do.
>>>
>>> So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even
>>> this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce
>>> everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward.
>>>
>>> That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward” rather
>>> than “sideways”.
>>>
>>> Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going
>>> backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...
>>>
>>> Graciously,
>>>
>>> John-Val Rose
>>>
>>> > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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 features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't
>>> know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 exactly does "make
OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
such functionality.

Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated?  And, how do I know
*before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
OpenJFX better" or be integrated?

​​
Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia

On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker  wrote:

> > 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 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.
>>
>> A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
>> introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
>> Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope
>> that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.
>>
>> So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but is
>> very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.
>>
>> I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
>> “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note,
>> that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?
>>
>> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
>> are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent
>> and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
>> frequency.
>>
>> Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
>> Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them
>> and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
>> doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
>> possible.
>>
>> But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get
>> large-scale changes to happen?
>>
>> Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of
>> individuals each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated
>> fashion.
>>
>> The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own perspective
>> on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the community
>> ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in general.
>>
>> I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that
>> call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the
>> moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises
>> his efforts.
>>
>> That’s what businesses do.
>>
>> So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even
>> this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce
>> everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward.
>>
>> That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward” rather
>> than “sideways”.
>>
>> Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going
>> backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...
>>
>> Graciously,
>>
>> John-Val Rose
>>
>> > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker  wrote:
>> >
>> > 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 features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't
>> know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.
>>
>
>

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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 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.
>
> A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
> introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
> Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope
> that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.
>
> So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but is
> very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.
>
> I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
> “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note,
> that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?
>
> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
> are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent
> and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
> frequency.
>
> Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
> Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them
> and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
> doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
> possible.
>
> But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get
> large-scale changes to happen?
>
> Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of individuals
> each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated fashion.
>
> The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own perspective
> on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the community
> ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in general.
>
> I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that
> call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the
> moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises
> his efforts.
>
> That’s what businesses do.
>
> So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even
> this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce
> everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward.
>
> That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward” rather
> than “sideways”.
>
> Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going
> backward as you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...
>
> Graciously,
>
> John-Val Rose
>
> > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker  wrote:
> >
> > 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 features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't
> know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.
>

Re: OpenJFX initiative

[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.

A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and 
introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX Documentation 
page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope that’s not a room 
number in “Hotel California”.

So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but is very 
difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.

I personally have not been able to get any response from them except “float 
your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note, that 
“interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?

What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon are 
fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent and are 
able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive frequency.

Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former Oracle 
employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them and access 
to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s doing and hope 
Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as possible.

But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get 
large-scale changes to happen?

Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of individuals each 
trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated fashion.

The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own perspective on 
exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the community ineffective 
unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in general.

I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that call. 
Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the moment but he 
has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises his efforts.

That’s what businesses do.

So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even this 
is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce everyone’s own 
ideas) so we can move forward.

That is of course *if* JavaFX is actually going to “move forward” rather than 
“sideways”.

Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going backward as 
you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...

Graciously,

John-Val Rose

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker  wrote:
> 
> 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 
> features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't know the scope of 
> what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.

OpenJFX initiative

[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 features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't know the
scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.