On 02/17/2011 10:35 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ricky Clarkson
<ricky.clark...@gmail.com <mailto:ricky.clark...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There is a problem; PropertyChangeListeners and the like easily lead
to sprawling, unmaintainable code.
JavaFX's binding model supposedly tackles this.
As do local message buses
<http://beust.com/weblog/2010/07/26/local-message-bus/>, in my
opinion. No need for a brand new UI toolkit...
Local Message Buses are one of my favourite patterns, but they don't
cover all the requirements. Binding is needed often.
Back to the topic, generically speaking I prefer an open approach. But
in this case:
1. There's not a lot to design: the libraries are already there, and
Oracle just needs to design the non-JavaFX-script bindings. Yes, binding
themselves can be designed in a bad or a good way, but it's not the core
point.
2. We all know that JavaFX is very late. It's out since four years and
not yet usable. Opening a process is good for getting a better
acceptance, but it slows things down. You can accept the trade-off in a
normal situation, not when you're already so late.
3. Given that JavaFX has not to beat Flash and Silverlight, but to
complement Swing, in a way it will find its way in industrial
applications relatively easy (it will be a lot easier if it will be easy
to mix it with Swing and allow an incremental way to use it).
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
