This is a genuinely serious issue and a genuinely sincere offer of helping as much as I can.
Some response would be greatly appreciated... > On 6 Sep 2017, at 16:53, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Getting back to the original issue, it's good to know that work is being done > to implement WebGL support but I fear that the whole process will take longer > than is really needed. > > As I see it, JavaFX has one major competitor which is Qt. Naturally JavaFX > lags behind Qt in features and performance as they basically had a 20 year > head start! > > But they do have a WebView with WebGL support and very advanced 3D features > in general (like a 3D Canvas). For JavaFX, it looks as though the 3D > features have been "unofficially deprecated" as no enhancements are planned > for JFX 10 and the existing features are rudimentary at best. > > But... just getting WebView to support WebGL instantly gives JavaFX advanced > 3D features via the multitude of WebGL libraries such as three.js etc. and > the urgency for a dedicated 3D Canvas would be greatly reduced. > > Further, Chromium (as used by Qt) is about to support WebGL 2 so the gulf is > widening at a rapid pace. > > Could someone please try to answer the following questions so I can get a > better handle on where we are and what needs to be done: > > 1. Why wasn't WebGL support implemented from day zero given that WebKit > supports it? > > 2. Is there some significant technical issue that makes WebGL implementation > particularly difficult? > > 3. What is a brief overview of the work that needs to be done? > > I ask because (as I said), I am willing to work on this feature with as much > spare time as I can find and am keen to get going ASAP. > > And it's not just a WebGL problem per se as the current WebView only supports > Google Maps (one of the world's top websites) in Lite Mode which again limits > the potential quite badly. > > I hope these issues are related and can be addressed simultaneously. > > Ultimately, I think it will be "fatal" if we have to wait another 4 years or > so for Java 10 to get features that are already well developed in the > competitor products. > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > Rosethorn Technology > >> On 26 Aug 2017, at 23:46, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> ... to Any high performance way to get images from native code to the screen >> in a JavaFX app. I filed an enhancement request many years ago for a method >> to supply portions of the media pipeline for the media player APIs. >> >> I've also been asking for some way to get at a native surface context. Be it >> DirectX, OpenGL, Metal,... even just a native window handle. >> >> >> Scott >> >>> On Aug 26, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Sten Nordstrom <stnordst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, all, >>> >>> Just want to state my support for Michael's "Direct backed WritableImage". >>> Having a way to do natively-backed rendering is IMO the most important >>> feature still missing from FX. This is an area where QT is still way ahead >>> with it's OpenGL/OpenGL ES integration. >>> >>> Having something like a direct-WritableImage implementation would also make >>> it easier to implement a video viewer using native decoder libs. Personally >>> I find this approach much more powerful than the existing FX 3D and media >>> streaming features, which are (especially 3D) limited in their >>> capabilities. >>> >>> I will be at JavaOne this year, so if there is any interest in meeting up >>> and talking JavaFX I'm in! >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Sten Nordström >>> >>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 at 22.41 Michael Hoffer <i...@michaelhoffer.de> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jonathan, hi all, >>>> >>>> I would like to bring up the "WritableImage backed by DirectBuffer" >>>> discussion again: >>>>
