Well, you would certainly know - thanks. That's very encouraging :-)
> On 11 Sep 2017, at 20:02, Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> wrote: > > 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. >> >>
