> > How can I get it to be on that real world usecases section? Or does it not > have the necessary requirements to be in it?
I meant this has a real question. Not being sarcastic... Regards, @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= > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira < pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have an Swing/JavaFX app, the site is: http://modellus.co > > How can I get it to be on that real world usecases section? Or does it not > have the necessary requirements to be in it? > > Thanks, best regards, > > @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= >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > Pedro Duque Vieira -- Pedro Duque Vieira
