@John: On the JavaFx community site they have a section with references to real world usecases. http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/community/index.html
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:40 AM, John C. Turnbull <ozem...@ozemail.com.au>wrote: > Like Daniel said, none of what we say is in any way a criticism of the > JavaFX development team who, in my view and that of the entire community, > are doing an awesome job. > > > > For mine, all the shortcomings of JavaFX (perceived or actual) can be blown > away if I could just demonstrate what JavaFX is really capable of. > > > > We have Ensemble from Oracle and also Ensemble from JFXtras (whose demo > incidentally doesn't run since Java 7 Update 21). With Oracle Ensemble we > can see that JavaFX has quite a nice set of basic controls and that it at > least supports very simple animations. With JFXtras Ensemble we can see > that very nice controls are possible but unfortunately many of these are of > a rather "whimsical" nature and not the kind of control you would use in > everyday business apps. > > > > What else is there? > > > > Of course we have rock stars like Gerrit Grunwald who frequently post > awesome controls and code snippets but we really need something that brings > it altogether in a kick-arse showcase. Preferably a whole suite of killer > apps that highlights everything JavaFX is capable of. > > > > Yes, that would require a lot of effort but IMHO it is absolutely worth it. > Without it, people like me really struggle to sell JavaFX or even get a > handle on its true potential. I can promise people that more advanced > things are "possible" but given that they write the cheques, they need to > see it for themselves. > > > > And how about a website of JavaFX reference sites? There must be big > companies out there using it right? > > > > In the end it doesn't matter if I personally see enormous potential for > JavaFX if I cannot convince others to see what I see. > > > > -jct > > > > From: Daniel Zwolenski [mailto:zon...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 09:12 > To: John C. Turnbull > Cc: Richard Bair; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD? > > > > +1 > > > > I've failed to convince multiple clients that they should use JFX because > of > > > a) lack of examples of what it can really do, and how to make it do that > (e.g. in enterprise space we have > http://static.springsource.org/docs/petclinic.html) > > b) lack of any big or notable players out there actually using it, or at > least publicly saying they are using it > > c) the deployment hassles vs the ease of html app deployment and the true > cross-platform-ness of html > > > > After actually getting one client to trust me on it and use it on a real, > commercial app (startup), I hit problems with performance (broad > interpretation of the term, not 'framerate'), crippling deployment and auto > updating issues, missing basic features (e.g. maximise button, coming in > 2014 I believe?), unpredictability of CSS styling, and a lack of best > practices for things like how to do CAD-like diagrams (not so much render > performance but zooming, panning, mouse input, layering, dragging, etc). > > > > Like John, I've been guilty of letting my frustration show in these forums. > Like John, it's because I want so badly for JavaFX to be the platform I > develop on, it has the potential to be awesome, but things (that seem > obvious and small to me) completely stop it from being usable in a real > world situation for me. > > > > It's not that we think the JFX team aren't slogging their guts out, clearly > you are. It's just that in some key areas, there are small-ish blocks that > stop the whole rocket from launching. To then see a whole lot of effort be > poured into things like binary CSS/FXML compilation, Pi platform support > (that's more important than iOS/Android, really?), web deployment patches, > or even 3D (as cool as that is), just knocks me about. Obviously your > priorities are coming from somewhere different to ours, but the way you > prioritise is unfathomable to me and that definitely adds to the > frustration. > > > > At this stage, I am not suggesting my clients use JFX (I actively > discourage > them from it, in their interest). Mobile is the area that has the potential > to bring JFX back into usable for me as it can compete easier with the > current technologies (which are all crap). Maybe if that ends up working (a > long, long road to go on that and very much an 'if') then it will seep back > into the desktop for me, but at a minimum the desktop deployment options > will need to be improved before that's even a possibility. > > > I've come to accept that I am not in the primary target audience for > JavaFX, > maybe a secondary target. I don't understand who the primary target is > though, and knowing/accepting doesn't make it any less frustrating. I keep > involved in the hope that I might get a usable platform somewhere along the > way but it's more of a hope than a belief. > > > > So nothing really new above, but just adding my voice to John's. JavaFX is > definitely not production ready for me, my clients and the types of apps I > build (e.g. consumer facing online systems, enterprise/backoffice systems, > form/data systems, diagramming systems). One day I hope it will be, but > it's > moving extremely slowly or not at all in the areas that would make it so > for > me. Meanwhile the competitors (primarily JavaScript based solutions) are > improving rapidly in the areas where they have traditionally been weak. > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, John C. Turnbull <ozem...@ozemail.com.au > <mailto:ozem...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > I have to stop posting late at night, that one came across as really ANGRY! > > It's not anger, it's passion... and frustration. > > I am frustrated because I spend much of my day trying to convince my > employer that we should be using JavaFX. They ask me questions like: > > "What happens if Oracle abandons JavaFX just like Sun did with JMF, Java3D, > JOGL etc. ?" > > I say: > > "This is Oracle, not Sun." > > They say: > > "Can you show me what JavaFX can do? There must be examples out there > right?" > > And I say: > > "Sure, here's Ensemble." > > They say: > > "OK, so it has a nice set of basic controls and can do simple animations > but > what about more complex things like Flash?" > > ...hence the dancing cat reference. > > It's not that my employer *needs* dancing cats, it's just that they need to > see that there is more to JavaFX than red circle transitions. I can't even > prove to them that JavaFX is capable of dancing cats. They don't have the > resources to fund me to develop something more sophisticated but they tell > me that if JavaFX truly was a "mature" technology (like I tell them) then > where are all the examples? > > I am finding it difficult to convince them that JavaFX is production ready > and is not still in "experimental" mode because I am unable to demonstrate > its true capabilities or refer them to many examples of people (and I mean > big companies) actually using it. > > The main concerns of my employer and I think many companies in a similar > situation is that JavaFX won't survive long term and that it is only really > suitable for form based applications. Then of course there is the whole > "HTML5 runs on all platforms" argument but that's another story... > > So this is why I think it's imperative that Oracle invests in developing a > true showcase application for JavaFX. Something that non-technical people > (like managers who make decisions about where the money goes) can look at > it > and go "wow!". > > I am just not getting my managers to go "wow" at what I can show them with > JavaFX at the moment. > > Every comment or apparent criticism I post about JavaFX is from the > perspective that I am trying to deal with real-world problems and people > who > require proof (such as demos, reference sites etc.) and not because I > myself > think JavaFX is not up to scratch. > > It's quite the opposite actually. > > I am a very, very strong believer and supporter of JavaFX and have many > reasons both personal and professional as to why I want it to be a massive > success. As I have said before, there are plenty of people who praise > JavaFX and tend to avoid the very real issues that are restricting its > adoption. I just think we have to face these issues head on if we are to > compete in what is a very cut-throat industry. > > -jct > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Bair [mailto:richard.b...@oracle.com > <mailto:richard.b...@oracle.com> ] > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 01:40 > To: John C. Turnbull > Cc: 'Daniel Zwolenski'; openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > <mailto:openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net> > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD? > > > For Flash, there are literally millions of examples of > > fancy/complex/impressive graphics and animations out there that can be > > really impressive at times. I have not seen ONE such example in JavaFX! > > Point to one? > > Have you seen any of the JavaOne examples? The movie wall or movies on a > stack of 3D cubes was pretty good. But I guess you're not interested in the > 3D aspect? What is it you are looking for exactly? Different people (on > this > list) have had different perceptions on both (a) what's important and (b) > what kind of graphics they're interested in. Most people would deride the > dancing cat as being totally irrelevant to the types of applications > they're > trying to build (the basis for much of flash animations is shape morphing, > you can find some code here https://gist.github.com/gontard/5029764). > > On the other hand, JavaFX is not a replacement for OpenGL. Drawing 25 > million lines is just not something we can do right now, especially in a > resource constrained environment. I've already commented on the memory > overhead (which would continue to be an issue even if the drawing part of > the problem were solved). > > I've pushed to graphics repo the StretchyGrid, which is about 300k line > nodes (the actual amount is variable, see the javadoc comments). At 300k > nodes the scene graph overhead is negligible on the FX side, dirty opts is > taking a long time to run, and painting is really slow. > > PULSE: 347 [122ms:222ms] > T12 (8 +0ms): CSS Pass > T12 (8 +0ms): Layout Pass > T12 (47 +53ms): Waiting for previous rendering > T12 (100 +1ms): Copy state to render graph > T10 (101 +16ms): Dirty Opts Computed > T10 (117 +105ms): Painted > Counters: > Nodes rendered: 306565 > Nodes visited during render: 306565 > > If I were doing this by hand in open GL, I think the drawing would be > essentially free, if I used LINES with GL anti-aliasing, I could send 'em > all down to the card in a single shot (and if I had a modern GL I could do > LINES + FXAA or one of the other per-pixel AA algorithms available and it > would turn out pretty nice). Because our shapes don't implement the non-AA > path, and our AA involves software rasterization and uploading of pixels, I > expect that to be the main source of the 105ms time being spent here. > > Also I noticed (by turning on prism.showdirty=true) that the entire grid is > being painted every time, even though visually it looks like only a small > subset actually needs to be changed. But that's really a minor thing, as I > said, drawing this many lines should basically be free if I configure > "smooth" to false in the app. Except that right now it is totally not > implemented (in NGShape): > > public void setAntialiased(boolean aa) { > // We don't support aliased shapes at this time > } > > The point of stretchy grid is not to say "wow look at this amazing demo". > The point is to say "what happens if I put in 300K nodes. Where does the > system start to fall over?". > > Richard= > > > >
