Hi all, I wish JavaFX could have a site that is similar to those of PrimeFaces or Bootstrap and other similar sites. They have a comprehensive pages for different components that even a new user or student can easily follow and try out.
Thank you. Julez On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 9:55 PM Nir Lisker, <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. I would like access, thanks. I'll be able to update the Eclipse > instructions and some of the Windows build instructions. > > 2. I submitted https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210360. It's > going > to take a large effort to go over every page there and see what needs > changing. If enough people join the task we could (and should) have it > updated for openjfx12. > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:49 PM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com > > > wrote: > > > 1. The OpenJFX Wiki on openjdk.java.net is ideal for maintaining pages > > related to the Project itself. This can be supplemented by other Wikis. > > As for access, any OpenJFX Project Author (or Committer) can have write > > access to the Wiki. Just let me know if you want access, but it isn't > > activated yet. > > > > 2. This is where the community could really help as noted by Johan and > > others. The tutorials are indeed out of date. If you want to file a JBS > > bug and assign it to me, I can see what needs to be done to either > > correct (if simple) or archive pages that are so out of date as to be > > useless (or worse, misleading). > > > > -- Kevin > > > > > > > > On 9/4/2018 1:18 AM, Nir Lisker wrote: > > > 1. Yes. The OpenJFX wiki is editable only by specific people (or only > > > Kevin) and it requires a lot of updating. We need either to be able to > > > submit changes to it, or to use the GitHub wiki which is collaborative > by > > > design, in which case we need to hide the OpenJFX wiki to avoid > > confusion. > > > > > > 2. Yes. The tutorials [1] are slightly outdated (and SceneBuilder > should > > > disappear from there ASAP and point to Gluon). I don't know who > controls > > > those pages. > > > > > > 3. No. There's not enough traction. Jonathan Giles collects some "links > > of > > > the week" and the semi-zombified /r/JavaFX subreddit is enough to > > indicate > > > that we shouldn't invest yet in this direction. > > > > > > [1] https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/javase-clienttechnologies.htm > > > > > > - Nir > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:02 AM Johan Vos <johan....@gluonhq.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> It has been mentioned a number of times that JavaFX would benefit > from a > > >> JavaFX website. > > >> I see a number of options that fall in the category website: > > >> > > >> 1. A set of pages with details on what OpenJFX is, how to build, where > > to > > >> download and get release notes, how to contribute, roadmap,... That is > > what > > >> I believe can perfectly be done in the OpenJFX wiki. It can be the > > >> reference manual > > >> > > >> 2. A set of pages targeting new and existing JavaFX developers, with a > > >> focus on where to download, how to get started (maven/gradle/IDE's), > > where > > >> to get docs/tutorials and probably with some links to third party > > libraries > > >> (free/commercial). This is sort of the user manual. > > >> > > >> 3. A highly interactive community site, gathering tweets/blog posts > etc, > > >> more or less similar to what James Weaver and Gerrit Grunwald did > years > > >> ago. > > >> > > >> For 1: I think this is up to us (OpenJFX committers) to maintain and > > >> improve. It will also benefit the people here. > > >> > > >> For 2: This is the most important thing, I believe. It would be great > > if a > > >> number of people from this list step up to organize this. It can be a > > >> static website, a github page, or anything else. I don't think this > > >> strictly belongs under OpenJFX (which I consider to be the technical > > >> development umbrella) but it's extremely important to have. > > >> I think this is a perfect opportunity for people and companies who > want > > to > > >> get more active in JavaFX to get involved in. > > >> > > >> For 3: That would be nice, but I think it's too ambitious for now. I > > would > > >> be happy with a static, simple, clear website. > > >> > > >> - Johan > > >> > > > > >
