Hi, when talking about mobile L&Fs like iOS and Android a lot more stuff need to be done. All the mobile UIs have different layout contains and a lot of default animations. When creating a Look and Feel for mobile systems a set of additinal panes / layout containers need to be created.
Hendrik > Am 09.12.2013 um 10:36 schrieb Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com>: > > BTW, I was wanting to refer to a comment on this topic made my Pedro DV on > Twitter today. Pedro has been doing stunningly good work on a Metro Look > and Feel for JavaFX and, when questioned by me, stated that while he may > attempt such a Look and Feel for Android, he wouldn't try to do one for iOS > for reasons which he did not completely explain. > > Pedro, do you mind expanding on those thoughts here? When you referred to > the numerous issue with iOS were you referring to iOS itself or to trying > to emulate iOS with JavaFX? > > Thanks, > > Felix > > > >> On 9 December 2013 20:24, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Spoiler: This is something I have become intensely passionate about so >> this is likely to be a long post... >> >> OK, so this (hijacked) thread started out as a discussion of options in >> JavaFX for implementing "Look and Feel". I think everyone agrees that >> even with CSS and skins, JavaFX lacks the built-in ability to define a >> true Look *and* Feel. Further to this, there has been discussion on >> Twitter and elsewhere regarding *native* Look and Feel and the merits of >> attempting such an animal with JavaFX. >> >> It is on this topic that I would like to add my 2 bits (as I am known to >> do)! I was going to use my blog http://justmy2bits.com but decided I >> would be much more likely to be able to engage fellow JavaFX developers >> in a positive, polite and respectful conversation here. >> >> First, anyone who may follow me on Twitter, in this forum or when I post >> in other forums (anyone?) will probably be a little bit confused as to >> where I actually stand on this issue. Well, this stems from the fact that >> I have been giving confusing (if not conflicting) input into various >> threads on this topic for quite a while. >> >> Why? >> >> Well, because until very recently, I myself was completely torn on the >> subject of native Look and Feel. In fact, I seemed to oscillate on an >> almost daily basis from thinking it's a great, achievable idea to >> dismissing such an idea on various grounds. I am swaying so much because I >> have so much riding on successful ports of JavaFX to iOS and Android and >> because those ports depend heavily on resolving this issue once and for all. >> >> Now I have had something of an epiphany and reached a conclusion. I now >> do not believe that pouring large (massive?) amounts of resources into the >> painstaking task of building a fully compliant, fully performant native >> Look and Feel is justifiable or worth the effort. And let's be clear about >> this: it is a *lot* of effort! >> >> But before I proceed I just want to say categorically how much I admire >> the thoroughly awesome work/efforts of the likes of Pedro DV, Claudine >> Zillmann, Hendrik Ebbers et. al. in (trying ever so hard) to bring native >> Look and Feel to various OS/platforms with JavaFX. I cannot put in words >> how much I am in awe of the commitment, the attention to detail, the >> technical prowess, the artistry and the drive of these fantastic people. >> Their work will undoubtedly be extremely useful to many developers >> worldwide. >> >> I want to make all that *perfectly clear* because now I am going to >> explain why I (probably) will not be one of those people and (hopefully) do >> it with the utmost respect for the aforementioned rock stars :-) >> >> Right, so back to the issue of whether to or not to implement or use a >> native Look and Feel. Some of the following comments have already been >> made by me on other networks and in other forums so apologies if it seems a >> bit repetitive to some. >> >> At first glance, the idea of a native Look and Feel seems almost like the >> proverbial Holy Grail. I mean, if such a thing were truly possible and >> viable, who wouldn't want one? You still have your single codebaseacross >> all platforms and you just just plug-in the particular native Look >> and Feel for your target platform and voila! World domination will surely >> soon follow! >> >> Well, not quite. It's a great idea but I am going out on a limb to claim >> that it has *never* worked. Ever! And by "work" I mean so that your >> "not-so-native" app looks and feels (which includes all aspects of >> behaviour, not just appearance) *exactly* like a true native app and *no >> one* could tell you that it *wasn't* a native app. >> >> Yes, I know there are masses now screaming at their monitors who will >> undoubtedly cite the numerous success stories of Swing apps or maybe even >> Qt or some other cross-platform UI toolkit and maybe my >> standards/criteria are harsher than others but I stand by my claim that >> this has *never ever* really, really, really worked. >> >> OK, so why not? >> >> Here's my first point: I postulate that such a noble goal is *not >> actually achievable*. It is not actually achievable for a number of >> reasons. >> >> It is not actually achievable because, in most cases, we do not have >> access to the code that implements the native controls on each OS so, at >> best, we are "guessing" when we try to emulate all aspects of their >> appearance and behaviour. Try as we may, we will never get *every* control >> exactly right and I firmly believe that anything that purports to be >> something else needs to be *identical*. >> >> It is not actually achievable because just as you feel you have reached an >> acceptable level of "compliance" (which I again wager is never 100%), the >> goal posts will move. That is, the OS vendor will release an update and >> even the minor ones can change either the appearance or behaviour of >> controls, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in not so subtle ways. >> Either way, there is then going to be a period of time where you are >> playing a futile game of catch-up and during that time your "native" >> controls will be surely exposed for the impostors they are. >> >> It is not actually achievable because the same control on one OS can look >> and feel/behave quite differently on another OS which leads to very poor >> levels of reuse. >> >> It is not actually achievable because many controls simply *can't be >> emulated in using Java/JavaFX *most likely because they have exclusive >> access to native system or OS calls that are not accessible to Java or >> because the expected levels of performance or "snappiness" cannot be >> achieved using Java by any means. Even with JNA or JNI you would be left >> scratching your head in many cases. >> >> And, it is not actually achievable because it's *simply too much work* to >> get anywhere near to perfection! We are talking *massive* amounts of >> effort and very few people have either the talent, the eye, the attention >> to detail or the patience to see such a project right through to the end >> where *all* controls are covered. The rock stars I mentioned earlier are >> the exceptions of course. There's clearly zero point in emulating *some* >> of the controls only; you need the *full set* or it's just not viable. >> >> Finally, and to look at it another way, what do we get even if some >> super-human delivers us a native Look and Feel for every possible platform? >> Well, a massive maintenance nightmare for a start! This super-human would >> basically be spending all their super time and using up all their super >> powers just keeping such libraries current. >> >> So, if you are still with me, *why bother*? Just consider if all those >> rock stars (and super heroes) concentrated all their super efforts into >> either improving the features, stability, performance or appearance of >> JavaFX itself? Just think what we could achieve! >> >> And on the *why bother* theme, why bother to devote all that time and >> effort, spend all those millions, tear out all that hair and hit all those >> roadblocks when the *very thing we are trying to achieve is already >> available*? >> >> Yes, that's right, if you really, really, really want to build a native >> app then why don't you just build a native app? There are numerous tools, >> languages, IDEs, toolchains and libraries that enable you to build >> awesome *true* native apps! I just don't think JavaFX is one of them :-) >> >> And it doesn't have to be one of those toolkits because JavaFX can be >> used to build an entirely different class of application and I now strongly >> believe that this is the kind of app we should be concentrating on. That >> class (or classes) of app is one that is not so heavily dependent on the >> native Look and Feel and doesn't need to be. There are probably hundreds >> of thousands of apps that are like this. They are everywhere and JavaFXis >> *perfect* for them! >> >> Scott Palmer has argued that this approach is not valid (and sorry Scott >> if am inaccurately paraphrasing you). He cites examples such as Chrome, >> Firefox and even MS Office as proof that this approach does not work. >> However, my response to that would be to say that just because these are >> examples of where the developers got it seriously wrong, they do not prove >> that this approach can't work and isn't working all over the marketplace. >> >> There is no need to develop crappy, mistake ridden software by using a >> toolkit such as JavaFX in a way that does not attempt to emulate the >> native Look and Feel and the fact that even big companies like Google >> *still* clearly get it horribly wrong doesn't imply that we *all* have to >> be so ineffective. >> >> Part of my newly-found aversion to emulated native Look and Feel comes >> from my many years of both developing and using Swing applications. Sure, >> I know there are *some* (handful?) successful Swing apps, most notably >> those developed with the NetBeans RCP, but in general Swing has failed to >> have any penetration into serious commercial software. Why? Well, there >> are several reasons (and a lot are due to Java itself) but, for me, I was >> never satisfied with the so-called native Look and Feel options that come >> with Swing. I have been (and still am) very critical of the Windows Look >> and Feel in Swing in particular because, even today, there is a vast gulf >> between an actual native Windows application and a Swing application with >> this Look and Feel. So much so that I still want to almost knock my >> monitor off the desk when I am using an application developed in this way. >> For me, this is not acceptable and such an application could never be >> released as a *serious commercial product*. >> >> And that's pretty much what this all boils down to: developing *serious >> commercial software*. >> >> If you are interested in developing something else then these lengthy >> comments (am I *still* going?) probably do not apply to you :-) >> >> So to summarise, I argue that it is not possible to develop serious >> commercial software using emulated Look and Feel in JavaFX or in *any* >> UItoolkit. I *strongly* recommend that we all work together to make >> JavaFX as good as it can be (which is absolutely awesome) by focusing on >> the core product, the API, the performance, the feature set, the stability >> *and* the supported platforms rather than throw good money after bad on a >> *wonderful* goal that ultimately can never be reached... >> >> Just my 2 bits, >> >> Felix >> >> P.S. I surely hope I have not offended any/all those who either disagree >> with the main points or who still believe that native Look and Feel is >> viable. I remind you all that I am on my knees bowing with respect to the >> rock stars I referred to and anyone else working on similar projects. >> Absolutely no offence is intended, I am merely expressing my (passionate) >> feelings on this subject. >> >> >>> On 9 December 2013 19:10, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9 December 2013 16:10, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> Firstly, it will *never* be possible to completely emulate the native >>>> look >>>>> and feel. >>>> >>>> Sure it is. Though it may never be practical, for many of the reasons >>>> you have given. >>>> >>>>> My reasoning is: why bother? >>>> >>>> Because it matters. As computer literate developers, we often don't >>>> realize what trips other people up. I get so frustrated with apps these >>>> days because they have become hard to use simply because the developers >>>> tried to define their own look and feel. For example, Chrome and >>>> Firefox... Or Microsoft Office... >>>> Where did the title bar go in chrome? >>>> Where have all the menus gone in Chrome, Firefox andOffice? I can find >>>> them, but when I have to play tech support over the phone to my parents >>>> these changes are massive problems. I ask my dad to move he window by >>>> dragging the title bar (please don't ask why he doesn't know to do this >>>> himself after decades of computer use) and he says "there is no title >>>> bar"... I the remember that yes, chrome did that... They got rid of a >>>> standard concept in the OS' windowing system and screed the end users. >>>> >>>> These apps became harder to use because of this "innovation" in the UI. >>>> >>>> Contrast this with applications on OS X where getting the UI right has >>>> always been an important priority for developers. Because adhering to the >>>> system look and feel has always been strongly encouraged the system is much >>>> easier to use. >>>> >>>>> These days, many apps do not look 100% native and may have their own >>>>> controls or look and feel in general. >>>> >>>> Yes, but to what end? They are now more difficult to use. >>>> >>>>> Why not channel all that massive >>>>> effort in constructing an emulated native look and feel into simply >>>> making >>>>> JavaFX better overall? >>>> >>>> But I agree here. The general look isn't the main issue.. E.g. little >>>> variations in color and minor tweaks to a few pixels here and there don't >>>> really matter. What does matter is when you change the order of buttons, >>>> like Okay & Cancel which have standard places that are different between >>>> Mac and Windows, or you move the About menu item from the Application menu >>>> on an OS X app to the help menu! because that is where you find it on >>>> Windows. Those things matter. >>>> >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Felix >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9 December 2013 12:35, Pedro Duque Vieira < >>>> pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> @Jasper: Yes, that's very interesting! Forgot that was possible to do >>>> in >>>>>> CSS. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Stephen Winnall <st...@winnall.ch> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It may be possible to change the LOOK with CSS, but not the FEEL, >>>> which >>>>>> is >>>>>>> where Java apps have traditionally failed big time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some things that I don’t think can be changed with CSS: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) texts >>>>>>> 2) order of buttons >>>>>>> 3) escape characters for shortcuts >>>>>>> 4) menus >>>>>>> 5) system-level stuff (double-clicking on files, dropping files on >>>>>>> applications, …) >>>>>>> 6) filesystem conventions >>>>>>> 7) ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think FXML can fix some of these, but not all. So it seems to me >>>> that a >>>>>>> LaF in JFX will consist of at least: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - one or more CSS files >>>>>>> - one or more FXML files >>>>>>> - some plumbing at the system level >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be nice to have a set of proper LaFs for each major platform >>>>>> with >>>>>>> an appropriate common API. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jasper Potts <jasper.po...@oracle.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can set skin classes from CSS so should be able to do everything >>>>>> you >>>>>>> could with Swing and more. With just a CSS file and skins as and when >>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jasper >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 3:00 PM, Jonathan Giles < >>>> jonathan.gi...@oracle.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At present there are no plans to introduce any further API or >>>>>>>>> functionality in this area, but if there is something you are >>>> wanting >>>>>>>>> then you should file feature requests in Jira. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Jonathan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2013 11:54 a.m., Pedro Duque Vieira wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there any Look and Feel mechanism in place, like the one in >>>> Swing? >>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>> doesn't appear to exist.. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are there any plans to add one? You can only do so much with >>>> CSS... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance, best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Pedro Duque Vieira >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>
