I don't mind giving it a go but I wouldn't like doing the work and then it not getting implemented (if the result is a success).
Personally, I think that the first thing we should do is make a list of what exactly it is we are trying to do if only to get a sense of the magnitude and be sure we have enough of the right people to finish it. Then we would, in all probability, need to write a JEP ( http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1) which also means we will need a project lead. Then follow the JEP road and hope for the best I guess. On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nir, > > You're not "hijacking" anything - I think it's been established that this > a broader "3D API support" issue. In fact, even broader than that. > > I'm only new on the JavaFX "scene" but I've looked through the history and > tried to analyse the present and anticipate the future. > > It seems that there are 2 main groups of JavaFX users: one that takes it > as it is and makes the most of it, sometimes in stunning and amazing ways > but they don't seem to like to rock the boat or try to force the > improvement of JavaFX itself so much. > > Then there's the others who get frustrated, ask for change, offer to > enable change or put on their boots and make change. A lot of them seem to > get "burned". > > We need people from both camps: one to showcase what can be done with what > we have in surprising ways and the others to drive innovation. > > I'm clearly in the 2nd group and I'm finding that there are quite a few of > us. I'm not so afraid of "getting burned" as we all take risks in life and > if you are passionate about something, you just go with it. > > But, the most disappointing aspect is that Oracle staff are often "M.I.A." > when discussing innovation and the future feature plans. As in this thread, > Oracle haven't exactly been chiming-in (and yes, I know a lot of it has > occurred outside of normal working hours). > > So Nir, Laurent (and the many others who are putting their hands up), > perhaps we should collaborate and not just "casually". OpenJFX is, after > all, "open" so perhaps a more formally coordinated team of motivated > community members can pool our resources and skills and "Just do it" (with > or without Oracle's help). > > I like what you are suggesting and what Sverre is requesting and what > numerous others are wanting, and I for one *want* them to become realities. > > Quite frankly, I don't see these changes and innovations (especially) > actually being realised any other way. > > Comments? > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > Chief Scientist/Architect > Rosethorn Technology > > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 23:13, Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I don't want to hijack the WebGL discussion but since it rolled into the > 3D > > library territory anyway I'll give my 2 cents. > > > > 3D enhancement are indeed not planned for Java10 (at the minimum) and > > indeed you can't bring your own shader (asked already at > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43622856/can-we- > implement-our-own-materials-in-javafx), > > but I agree with Mike - you can, maybe somewhat surprisingly, do quite a > > lot with what there is. > > > > Perhaps the most limiting feature is not supporting industry standards of > > 3D modeling via converters (import/export). It has been suggested ( > > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091851) but last activity was > 5 > > years ago. As for shaders (materials), lightings etc., from what I > remember > > by looking around in the source, it will take some effort to rewrite the > > API to be able to accept custom ones but it's far from impossible. If > Phong > > is implemented there's little reason reason others won't fit (maybe > > reflective surfaces don't work). Similarly a directional light can be > based > > on the implemented point light be using a cone instead of a sphere. > > > > We've employed some clever tricks to get adequate "advanced features" > > results and considering that all of it can be single-handedly run on iOS > > and Android with Gluon Mobile (specifically JavaFXPorts) I think there > *is* > > a future in this direction and I'm willing to team up with whomever is > > interested provided we can get minimal support from the Oracle team. >