Isn't that one of the reasons why you are supposed to load your favorite
JS libraries from a content delivery network? That way they get cached
across multiple applications, but since you can refer to a particularly
version you can upgrade at your liking.
Peter
Michael Kimsal wrote:
> Bun
Bundled doesn't mean that they could not be upgraded. Pre-loaded might be a
better term, but I didn't think people would misinterpret bundled. If FF3
comes bundled with my Linux distro, that doesn't mean that I can't upgrade
to FF4 when it comes out, it just saves me the time and hassle of instal
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:57:10AM -0400, Michael Kimsal wrote:
> I think that may have been misunderstood. I'm suggesting that browser
> makers might actually bundle the javascript libraries with the browser
> directly, such that no downloading of anything extra (other than your app's
> js code)
On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Michael Kimsal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Joshua Marinacci
> wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Michael Kimsal wrote:
>
>> To whatever extent RIA tech (Silverlight, Flex, JavaFX, whatever)
>> forces people to upgrade rather than offering t
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:23 AM, Michael Kimsal wrote:
>
> To whatever extent RIA tech (Silverlight, Flex, JavaFX, whatever) forces
> people to upgrade rather than offering them a 'less than current but still
> functional' experience, it'll
Josh: I've had more than one AIR app fail to start because it was for
an earlier version of the AIR runtime than I had, the EXT-JS online
help was one of them, so versioning of AIR apps/runtimes has been an
issue for me.
Joe D: There is an important difference between Silverlight/Air and
JavaFX (
On Mar 25, 1:54 pm, Joshua Marinacci wrote:
> That's why caching is
> important and why JavaFX hitting 100m downloads of the runtime is
> important. It means that there are 100m desktops that can run your
> JavaFX app without having to download the runtime. (100m was in feb,
> i'm sure it
Mar 24, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Alexey Zinger
> wrote:
>
>
> Yahoo Mail does this kind of rich text editor (including dragging
> images off other browser windows). I haven't looked very deeply
> into it yet, but it seems to be done primarily with JavaScript.
>
> Alexe
First order of business for Sun marketing is never pay any mind or
give any notice of the second string competition of the likes of
Silverlight. Concentrate on the #1 player - Adobe Flex/AIR.
Second item - go after Adobe AIR. This is the place where JavaFX
(founded on a Java SE runtime) can defin
ow so used to,
> > such as addressability and uniformity?
>
> > /Casper
>
> > On 24 Mar., 17:39, Alexey Zinger wrote:
>
> > > Just checked, and you're quite right.
>
> > > Alexey
>
> > > --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
>
"If you really want to provide something interesting I'd build a rich
text editor that can be easily embedded in a web app. "
That would be awesome - if it was as simple to use as ...
(and free/libre) I would provide my first born. Sure she would put up
a fight, but dad knows best.
On Mar 25, 1:
editor
> > > (including dragging images off other browser windows). I
> > > haven't looked very deeply into it yet, but it seems to
> > > be done primarily with JavaScript.
>
> > > > Alexey
>
> > > > --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson
> > >
> Alexey
>
> --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
>
> > From: phil swenson
> > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Getting Google to embrace JavaFX -> Idea for
> > Java / JavaFX coders with time on their hands...
> > To: "The Java Posse"
> >
checked, and you're quite right.
>
> Alexey
>
> --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
>
> > From: phil swenson
> > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Getting Google to embrace JavaFX -> Idea for
> > Java / JavaFX coders with time on their hands...
> >
Just checked, and you're quite right.
Alexey
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
> From: phil swenson
> Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Getting Google to embrace JavaFX -> Idea for
> Java / JavaFX coders with time on their hands...
> To: "The Java Posse&qu
ext editor (including dragging images
> off other browser windows). I haven't looked very deeply into it yet, but
> it seems to be done primarily with JavaScript.
>
> Alexey
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
>
> > From: phil swenson
> &g
done primarily with JavaScript.
>
> Alexey
>
> --- On Tue, 3/24/09, phil swenson wrote:
>
> > From: phil swenson
> > Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: Getting Google to embrace JavaFX -> Idea for
> > Java / JavaFX coders with time on their hands...
> > To:
: [The Java Posse] Re: Getting Google to embrace JavaFX -> Idea for
> Java / JavaFX coders with time on their hands...
> To: "The Java Posse"
> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 10:53 AM
> Uploaders are all over the place in Flash and I really doubt
> that Java
> can do
Uploaders are all over the place in Flash and I really doubt that Java
can do a better job than Flash. Flash's install is nicer, faster,
smaller, and has more market share.
If you really want to provide something interesting I'd build a rich
text editor that can be easily embedded in a web app.
If you were google or facebook, what would be the 'win' for writing a Java
uploader at this point in time? To say that you've got one? To make people
choose between the two? To have to write extra code to detect and choose a
'best' one? To write more code to remember which uploader a person cho
On Mar 23, 8:03 pm, Michael Neale wrote:
> I have noticed facebook use a signed applet apploade for images (or at
> least they used to). But I wouldn't be surprised if they moved to
> flash as well (just slightly less intrusive user experience). I know
> java 6u10 fixed a lot of this, but its
I think they would be looking at flash: GMail now uses a flash based
uploader.
I have noticed facebook use a signed applet apploade for images (or at
least they used to). But I wouldn't be surprised if they moved to
flash as well (just slightly less intrusive user experience). I know
java 6u10 fi
22 matches
Mail list logo
