Hi!
Just for the records: My test included the JVM startup time. Yours start
counting in main() where the JVM is already up - and probably some of the
classpath scanning already took place because of the inheritance from
„javafx.application.Application“ .
Your test shows „showing: 298 shown: 468“ on my machine.
A „native“ splash screen usually should start up at the very first, before the
JVM starts.
Best regards,
Mario
> Am 05.06.2018 um 19:04 schrieb Weiqi Gao <weiqi...@gmail.com>:
>
> Here's a more accurate (but still rough) timing application:
>
> import javafx.application.Application;
> import javafx.stage.Stage;
> import javafx.scene.Scene;
> import javafx.scene.control.*;
> import javafx.scene.layout.*;
>
> public class Main extends Application {
> private static long t1;
> private static long t2;
> private static long t3;
> private static long t4;
>
> public void start(Stage stage) {
> t2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
> Label l1 = new Label("main: " + t1);
> Label l2 = new Label("start: " + (t2 - t1));
> Label l3 = new Label("");
> Label l4 = new Label("");
> VBox vbox = new VBox(l1, l2, l3, l4);
> Scene scene = new Scene(vbox);
> stage.setScene(scene);
> stage.setTitle("Timing Demo");
> stage.setOnShowing(e -> {
> t3 = System.currentTimeMillis();
> l3.setText("showing: " + (t3 - t2) + ", " + (t3 - t1));
> });
> stage.setOnShown(e -> {
> t4 = System.currentTimeMillis();
> l4.setText("shown: " + (t4 - t3) + ", " + (t4 - t1));
> });
> stage.show();
> }
>
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> t1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
> launch(args);
> }
> }
>
> The result of running it on my Dell laptop with Intel Core i7-6820HQ
> @2.70GHz,CPU and NVIDIA Quadro M1000M display adapter is attached:
>
> Essentially, it took less than half a second for a dead simple JavaFX Stage
> to be visible.
>
> Here's the timing number for 10 consecutive runs: 422, 440, 426, 442, 418,
> 441, 432, 444, 470, 453
>
> --
> Weiqi Gao
> weiqi...@gmail.com
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Scott Palmer <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, my only comment was that if we can get a window up using standard Java
>> GUI frameworks fast enough, then the complexity of adding splashscreen
>> support to the launcher isn't justified.
>> Mario's example shows that is it 1-2 seconds to get a window up. That is a
>> bit high. If it was under 1s then I would suggest not bothering, it isn't,
>> so keep it on the list of desired features.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:21 AM Pedro Duque Vieira <
>> pedro.duquevie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, perhaps it was I who misunderstood the debate..
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Michael Paus <m...@jugs.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe I misunderstood the question but to my opinion the real question
>> is
>>>> whether the new java packager has to provide the support for a splash
>>>> screen
>>>> or not. This has nothing to do with the question whether applications
>>>> should
>>>> have a splash screen or not because if we find that todays Java is fast
>>>> enough
>>>> to display a simple window in less than a second or so, then the Java
>> GUI
>>>> (Swing or JavaFX) could provide a splash screen itself. There is then
>> no
>>>> need
>>>> for an additional mechanism provided my the packager.
>>>>
>>>> Am 04.06.18 um 16:44 schrieb Pedro Duque Vieira:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Johan and others, a splash screen is valuable and needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft applications that run on Windows itself (think Word, Excel,
>>>>> etc),
>>>>> they have a splash screen, Intelllij has a splash screen (it's swing
>>> based
>>>>> AFAIK), etc.. If a Microsoft application running on its own operating
>>>>> system needs a splash screen then chances are pretty high that there
>>> will
>>>>> be Java apps that'll need a splash screen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pedro Duque Vieira
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Weiqi Gao (高为奇)
> weiqi...@gmail.com
> http://weiqigao.blogspot.com/
