On 02/18/2011 12:01 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it mailto:fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
wrote:
3. Given that JavaFX has not to beat Flash and Silverlight, but to
complement Swing, in a way it will find its
My prediction, as expressed previously in another thread, is that
desktop apps are not dying, but instead they'll gain sandboxing so
that users don't have to trust them, like they don't have to trust web
apps today. And then the line between desktop and web app will be
blurred.
On Fri, Feb 18,
And the runtime underneath responsible for the sand-boxing? We sort of
lack a unified, standardized, cross-platform application container.
On Feb 18, 11:49 am, Ricky Clarkson ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
My prediction, as expressed previously in another thread, is that
desktop apps are not
I like to call it the operating system.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
And the runtime underneath responsible for the sand-boxing? We sort of
lack a unified, standardized, cross-platform application container.
On Feb 18, 11:49 am, Ricky Clarkson
Ehh sure, because operating systems all agree on types, overflow
semantic, memory model, scheduling, sand-boxing etc. etc.
On Feb 18, 11:58 am, Ricky Clarkson ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
I like to call it the operating system.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Casper Bang
On 02/18/2011 11:36 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
On Feb 17, 10:31 pm, Ricky Clarksonricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a problem; PropertyChangeListeners and the like easily lead
to sprawling, unmaintainable code.
JavaFX's binding model supposedly tackles this.
Yes, the library approach
On 02/18/2011 12:12 PM, Ricky Clarkson wrote:
Operating systems already all sandbox users from each other, unless
you count embedded OSs and Windows 98. It would just be another such
level.
Which could be virtualization too, IMHO. We can now virtualize even
Android...
--
Fabrizio Giudici -
Which could be virtualization too, IMHO. We can now virtualize even
Android...
That sounds a bit more concrete, but the problem remains however: How
to get each and everyone to agree on a virtualization/hypervisor
interface, while remaining impartial about it. Google's Native Client
as
The truth is that JavaFX is a huge failure.
I was amused by this tweet by @javafx4you:
interest in #JavaFX is higher than never :D RT @AdamBien: JavaFX 2 or 43
comments in 24h: http://bit.ly/fivKR6;
--http://twitter.com/javafx4you/status/38485932638208000
I don't know if never is a typo or
On Feb 18, 11:54 am, Casper Bang casper.b...@gmail.com wrote:
And the runtime underneath responsible for the sand-boxing? We sort of
lack a unified, standardized, cross-platform application container.
My bet is the world will unify on x-to-Javascript compilers in HTML
5 in the browser.
Given the first line of the article reads In contrary to JavaFX..., I
suspect this one is a typo.
It also depressingly reinforces my suspicion that the API's answer to
immutability will be Eh? What's that then, speak up lad!
On 18 February 2011 08:48, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Augusto Sellhorn
augusto.sellh...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you sign up for EA or beta? Be nice to play around with it a
bit ...
You have to be a partner. The different kinds of partnerships are described
here: http://javafx.com/partners/learn.jsp
Moandji
--
Alternatively, fill in the following form and wait until beta time
(which is a free for all), or contact the JavaFX Partner Program team
to ask to join the EA project.
http://www.oracle.com/dm/11q1field/javafx_beta_en.html
-- Jonathan
On Feb 17, 4:54 pm, Augusto Sellhorn
I quite like the JavaFX technology however I am skeptical whether it
is going to be really popular outside the communities who use SWING. I
wanted it to take off but so far things seem to have fallen short of
the hype at the launch of JavaFX 1.0. I wonder if it is coming too
late for mass
On 02/17/2011 12:36 PM, Carl Jokl wrote:
I quite like the JavaFX technology however I am skeptical whether it
is going to be really popular outside the communities who use SWING.
I think it's reasonable that the old idea of JavaFX to compete with
Flash and Silverlight has gone and we're
On 17 Feb 2011 12:57, Fabrizio Giudici fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it
wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:36 PM, Carl Jokl wrote:
I quite like the JavaFX technology however I am skeptical whether it
is going to be really popular outside the communities who use SWING.
I think it's reasonable that the
On 17 Feb 2011 13:49, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
wrote:
My main concern here is that the early access will keep it out the hands
of other JVM languages, especially those under open source where the
likelihood of
On 17 Feb 2011 14:04, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Feb 2011 13:49, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com
wrote:
My main concern here is that the early access will keep it out the
hands of other
it would be nice to see some sort of external layout similar to Flex's mxml.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jonathan Giles
jonat...@jonathangiles.netwrote:
I'm also happy to chime in here if anyone has questions or comments.
-- Jonathan
On Feb 17, 8:26 am, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com
It would be nice to see some sort of sane DSL similar to the kind of thing
our existing IDEs are already very good at validating and refactoring!
On 17 February 2011 14:45, Serge Boulay serge.bou...@gmail.com wrote:
it would be nice to see some sort of external layout similar to Flex's
mxml.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.comwrote:
It would be nice to see some sort of sane DSL similar to the kind of thing
our existing IDEs are already very good at validating and refactoring!
I'm guessing Groovy or Scala are going to provide that fairly quickly.
On 17 February 2011 15:06, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.comwrote:
It would be nice to see some sort of sane DSL similar to the kind of thing
our existing IDEs are already very good at validating and refactoring!
that would be xml then. This would be no different than the approach that
Silverlight and Flex take.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Kevin Wright kev.lee.wri...@gmail.comwrote:
It would be nice to see some sort of sane DSL similar to the kind of thing
our existing IDEs are already very good
the problem with the DSL approach is that you have to use an alternate JVM
language .. .there goes the Back to Java and You don't have to learn
another language marketing for JavaFx 2.0.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM,
What is really baffling to me about this JavaFX Early Access debacle is
that Oracle is treating JavaFX as if it was a huge success that now needs to
be carefully protected, designed in secret and kept away from developers
while the tough decisions are being made.
The truth is that JavaFX is a
2011/2/17 Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com
JavaFX is probably beyond any salvation at this point, but if there is one
thing that might, possibly have a slimmer of a chance to work, it would be
to open it up completely. Open the mailing-list and the design discussions,
have the core developers
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/17 Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com
JavaFX is probably beyond any salvation at this point, but if there is one
thing that might, possibly have a slimmer of a chance to work, it would be
to open it up completely.
There is a problem; PropertyChangeListeners and the like easily lead
to sprawling, unmaintainable code.
JavaFX's binding model supposedly tackles this.
2011/2/17 Cédric Beust ♔ ced...@beust.com:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/17 Cédric Beust ♔
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ricky Clarkson ricky.clark...@gmail.comwrote:
There is a problem; PropertyChangeListeners and the like easily lead
to sprawling, unmaintainable code.
JavaFX's binding model supposedly tackles this.
As do local message
On 02/17/2011 10:35 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ricky Clarkson
ricky.clark...@gmail.com mailto:ricky.clark...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a problem; PropertyChangeListeners and the like easily lead
to sprawling, unmaintainable code.
JavaFX's binding
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Fabrizio Giudici
fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it wrote:
3. Given that JavaFX has not to beat Flash and Silverlight, but to
complement Swing, in a way it will find its way in industrial applications
relatively easy (it will be a lot easier if it will be easy to
Adam Bien has posted a hello world example:
http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/hello_javafx_2_back_to
The comments are worth reading, as Java FX team members chime in.
Moandji
--
www.moandjiezana.com
Sent from my phone
On 11 Feb 2011 20:39, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
--
I'm also happy to chime in here if anyone has questions or comments.
-- Jonathan
On Feb 17, 8:26 am, Moandji Ezana mwa...@gmail.com wrote:
Adam Bien has posted a hello world
example:http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/hello_javafx_2_back_to
The comments are worth reading, as Java FX
How do you sign up for EA or beta? Be nice to play around with it a
bit ...
On Feb 11, 6:18 pm, Mark Derricutt m...@talios.com wrote:
Well I've signed up for the Early Access / Beta - will see if I get in or
not :)
--
Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things — Steven Wilson,
34 matches
Mail list logo
