>From experience, I can tell you that if you do the work and write high-quality code that makes OpenJFX better, I'm sure it will be possible to integrate it.
- Johan On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:00 AM John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Nir. > > I am very aware of the formal processes involved but also cognisant of the > considerable time/delays and "red tape" that can be an undesirable > consequence of such formality. > > I'm also not a "hope for the best" kinda guy. > > I think first we really need (and really hope) someone from Oracle to make > an official comment on all these matters to ensure, as you suggest, that > any or all of our efforts are "successful". > > There are multiple ways for a "lack of success" to result that have > nothing to do with the quality, correctness, efficiency or even the "value" > of our contributions. > > There's absolutely no point in devoting one nanosecond of anyone's time to > a project doomed to fail for reasons beyond our control. > > Oracle: can you please comment on these issues and the various ways to > expedite implementation of both resolutions and (especially) increase the > velocity of innovation? > > Graciously, > > John-Val Rose > > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 10:25, Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > 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. > >> >
