On Fri, 22 May 2026 17:12:28 GMT, Andy Goryachev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> modules/javafx.base/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/PlatformUtil.java line 298:
>>
>>> 296: * @implNote To save CPU cycles, animations are not done for
>>> embedded
>>> 297: */
>>> 298: public static boolean isDoAnimations() {
>>
>> I think we shouldn't hard-code behavior for different platforms, especially
>> since the assumption that **all** embedded platforms are totally unable to
>> show animations is flawed at best. There are powerful embedded systems.
>>
>> We've had `Scene.Preferences.reducedMotion` for quite some time now, so we
>> should make animations depend on that preference instead. For backwards
>> compatibility, we could make `Platform.Preferences.reducedMotion` default to
>> `true` on embedded platforms.
>
> I think it should be ok for this PR (corresponds to the status quo), but you
> do bring a good point: `isEmbedded()` is extremely vague - is it referring to
> a 8085 kind of embedded or embedded linux on 2 GHz arm chip?
>
> And what does it mean, exactly? There are a few places that use it
> currently, like sub-pixel (LCD) font rendering, some caching in
> `TitledPaneSkin`, texture mapping in Phong material, etc.
>
> Perhaps instead we should consider splitting it into individual features like
> `low power`, `resource constrained`, `reduced graphic quality` and the like.
>
> What do you think?
Agree. I initially wanted to add a System Property instead - but decided
against because I want to keep the behavior for now.
But I'm definitely in favor of a better method.
Regarding `Platform.Preferences.reducedMotion`, this seems like a good
candidate here and also `Pagination` prev/next Animation - maybe the
`TitledPane` `animated` property default and some more.
+1 from me.
I think this would not solve all cases though, as Andy mentioned there are some
other locations where `reducedMotion` makes not that much sense probably, but
instead something like `reduced graphic quality` or similar.
How about I create a ticket, and the two of you add any details I haven't
covered - so we have a well-documented ticket? Then I can send an email and see
what kind of feedback we get.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2146#discussion_r3294703639
