Ty,
If it’s so easy to fix then why don’t you just fix it?
John-Val
> On 28 Dec 2019, at 09:14, Ty Young wrote:
>
>
>> On 12/27/19 4:19 AM, Johan Vos wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> What tutorial are you talking about? If you refer to https://openjfx.io,
>> that is a community-initiative, develop
I’ve all but given up on StackOverflow.
It seems to be a haven for trolls or control freaks who deem perfectly
reasonable questions as off-topic or inappropriate whereby the question then
gets put on hold and can’t be answered.
It’s ridiculous and makes the forum almost unusable.
Some people e
Thanks Johan.
Your contributions certainly do not go unnoticed, nor unappreciated,
> On 30 Mar 2019, at 04:17, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> Thanks Johan, I was actually not aware of this repo, I guess I missed it
> when it was brought up. Will take a look.
>
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:10 PM Johan V
+1
> On 30 Mar 2019, at 03:28, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The main page at https://openjfx.io still shows JavaFX11 even though 12 is
> released. Is it because Gluon offers LTS for 11 and not 12? Shouldn't the
> main page show the latest version regardless?
>
> - Nir
openjfx-dev-ow...@openjdk.java.net
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of openjfx-dev digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Has any consideration been made
client implementation???). So because of
> backward compatibility keeping in OpenJFX what was in Oracle's JRE makes
> sense. Call it historical debt or something. We just need a better
> alternative and then the classes can be removed at some point in the future.
>
>
>> On
seems quite ok.
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/api/javafx.controls-summary.html
>
>
>> On 6-1-2019 02:58, John-Val Rose wrote:
>> I doubt any JavaFX application would use ALL the features so couldn’t you
>> make the same argument for “detachment” about ma
, I meant removing charts from the core of JavaFX and moving he charts to
> a separate JPMS module.
>
> Why? They are not really core components are they? They are dead weight in
> applications that never will use them.
>
>> On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 8:44 AM John-Val Rose
Hi Ramon,
I personally have never seen or heard of any such discussion and I’m not
entirely sure in which context you are using the word “module”.
Do you meaning simply removing charts from the core of JavaFX or do you mean
creating the charts as an actual module within JPMS?
Either way, can y
t-all-in
>> mistake Java made.) The layout logic should be similar to when doing it
>> in Canvas, only reusable.
>>
>> Also I have found that when rotating is involved, a lot of layouts do
>> not what you expect them to do. Have you given MigLayout a try? It
>> so
> layout logic should be similar to when doing it in Canvas, only reusable.
>
> Also I have found that when rotating is involved, a lot of layouts do not
> what you expect them to do. Have you given MigLayout a try? It sometimes
> has surprising results (both positive and negative
My feedback would to ask this kind of question on a more appropriate list or
forum.
I believe this list is exclusively to discuss issues related to the development
of OpenJFX itself.
Graciously,
John-Val
> On 15 Dec 2018, at 12:50, John Hendrikx wrote:
>
>
> (Sent this twice, first message
t
I hope this helps.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 12:32, Chengen Zhao wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> We are currently developing games by using JavaFX
> one feature would be nice to have is 3D Canvas node
> so is it possible to have this feature in the future release?
>
> Thanks
Johan,
I’m guessing that Gluon Mobile and GluonVM will run on Android with JavaFX 11
(eventually at least).
Is this correct?
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Rosethorn Technology
> On 5 Oct 2018, at 06:00, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>
>
>> My proposal would therefore be that I split t
That video is typical marketing “smoke and mirrors”.
With no access to the code of either app, it is simply unfair and disingenuous
to claim a performance advantage.
I am certain I could post an almost identical comparison video where the
results would be the complete opposite.
Yeah, good prog
of Gluon when it comes to porting the app to mobile.
Their URL is http://gluonhq.com
Graciously,
John-Val
> On 7 Sep 2018, at 10:22, John-Val Rose wrote:
>
> Thanks Michael - your answer was way better than mine!
>
>> On 7 Sep 2018, at 10:19, Michael Ennen wrote:
>>
&
Thanks Michael - your answer was way better than mine!
> On 7 Sep 2018, at 10:19, Michael Ennen wrote:
>
> Amno,
>
> It is not a zero-sum choice. FXML is a part of JavaFX. FXML does not add
> anything, per se (in terms of nodes, controls, etc.) FXML allows for
> decoupling
> the specific UI con
FXML is “part” of JavaFX. It’s the format used to specify the UI of a JavaFX
application.
Plus I don’t think this is the appropriate list to post such questions as it is
intended as a forum to discuss the development of JavaFX itself.
> On 7 Sep 2018, at 09:47, AmnoJeeuw wrote:
>
> I am learn
Mike, can you explain what you mean by a “JavaFX website”?
> On 3 Sep 2018, at 02:59, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> I believe you're over-thinking this Pedro. A quote from Margaret Thatcher
> springs to mind:
>
> "They are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no
>> such thing!
open to everyone as
possible and no person or entity should have a commercial advantage over others.
So, basically I like your question, I don’t believe the current scenario is
satisfactory but unfortunately I confess I can’t offer any suggestions of
better scenarios.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
, we don't need a replacement for OpenGL in the Java 11
> timeframe :)
>
> - Johan
>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:35 AM John-Val Rose wrote:
>> Unfortunately Apple is doing exactly what Microsoft did during the “Great
>> API Wars”. During this time, MS de
Unfortunately Apple is doing exactly what Microsoft did during the “Great API
Wars”. During this time, MS decided to go with its own exclusive graphics API
namely Direct 3D as part of their whole DirectX technology instead of the
obvious approach of supporting OpenGL fully.
These days, GPU driv
Thanks very much Kevin.
This is a great step forward and will make all of our lives easier.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 8 May 2018, at 17:43, Johan Vos wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Excellent work.
> I confirm this is working for me.
>
> Java: openjdk 11-ea+12 for
OK, after Wolfgang’s comments, I will unleash my rant again in the
“appropriate” thread as I feel that the lack of JavaFX adoption is very much
due to the nature of the toolkit itself:
Well, not only do I think that a docking framework is *that* complex, I see it
as an essential part of any s
said venting...
> On 8 Feb 2018, at 03:42, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>
> This has now veered off topic for this thread. It would be a fine topic for
> the "future content of OpenJFX" thread.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> John-Val Rose wrote:
>>
>>
>>
Well, not only do I think that a docking framework is *that* complex, I see it
as an essential part of any serious graphics toolkit.
In general, I don’t understand all the limitations that people keep imposing on
JavaFX as if we have to “settle” for what is basically a 2nd class citizen
compa
Jonathan - why do you *cough* at ideas like more complex controls and docking
frameworks?
I think that a docking framework especially would be a great addition to JavaFX.
Am I missing something?
> On 7 Feb 2018, at 18:16, Jonathan Giles wrote:
>
> Obviously everyone is at ControlsFX instead ;
” may be much bigger than I thought,
which would be great!!!
> On 7 Feb 2018, at 07:49, John Neffenger wrote:
>
>> On 02/05/2018 08:14 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
>> ... is it possible that there are lots and lots of “observers” or “lurkers”
>> out there just waiting until all
. Most
> people only consider going places where the road already leads—and that might
> be about 99%.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 11:14 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
>>
>> I think there’s a small matter that is being overlooked he
Yes - I agree. WASM would be great.
And I believe the folks at JPro are working on just that...
> On 6 Feb 2018, at 22:01, Stephen Desofi wrote:
>
> Another one high on my list would be browser support via WebAssembly.
> Access to the DOM would be secondary, or not important at all. If we
I think there’s a small matter that is being overlooked here.
The size of the “talent pool”.
I’m just pulling numbers out of thin air here but first I’m guessing that the
vast majority of JavaFX users do *not* read this list.
Then, out of those who do, only some *care* enough to contribute.
Ou
Yes, me too.
I think it’s logical to establish *how* to make contributions first (and it’s
great to see a lot of progress with this so far) but then there clearly needs
to be a discussion of exactly *what* those contributions are, who decides which
ones are important or permitted and how are th
obably me.
>
> Sent from iCloud
>
>> On Feb 03, 2018, at 09:35 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
>>
>
>> Well, then one of us is "off topic"...
>>
>>
>> Kevin Rushforth:
>>
>> "We are specifically looking to discuss ideas around the
nics of making contributing to JavaFX easier.I
> am talking about making the motivations of contributing to JavaFX easier.
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from iCloud
>
> On Feb 03, 2018, at 09:14 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> 1. Swift and your "crystal ball&qu
ling story as to why developers
should join and contribute".
3. TL;DR
John-Val Rose
(trying to be polite)
On 4 February 2018 at 12:58, Stephen Desofi wrote:
> John,
>
> The point I am making is that Swift is catching up as a cross
> platform toolkit and is availab
nt side
> development platform or forever be confined to the server.
>
> This is why I need some clarification as to what our role as contributors is
> going to be. I don’t believe an open source project can flourish if the
> contributors have no say or stake in the direction
e scene graph rendering in a very
tangible way.
If things pan-out as they are being described and becoming & being a
contributor is simplified to the extent where it justifies me devoting a
large chunk of my time to OpenJFX, this is probably what I would want to
work on first.
Graciously,
John-
tremendous quality, utility and value!
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 2 Feb 2018, at 11:03, Richard Steiger wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> As a long-time observer of the OpenJFX project, let me put all my chips at
> this point on making builds more stable, bullet-proof, and automated,
Thank you Pedro.
I’ve admired your work for some time.
Well, it seems we’re all singing the same song.
The question is, who (if anyone) is listening?
> On 19 Dec 2017, at 09:12, Pedro Duque Vieira
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been with JavaFX since version 1, also have experience with Swing.
>
It’s been noted that my previous email was very much in the “TL;DR” category.
I’m sorry about that.
I guess I just had a lot to say and feel very passionate about JavaFX.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
the others can be The Avengers? (Sorry if you're
more of a DC fan).
Please feel free to reach out to me at any time to (privately and
confidentially) discuss any of these issues, or even better, post on this
list.
P.S. I'd like to especially praise the efforts and outstanding achievements
7;d like to ask this multi-part question in the hope that as many
people reply as possible:
*** For *your* siutation, what is JavaFX, how do you want it to evolve and
what does it mean to you? ***
Maybe I really am "Robinson Crusoe"...
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
n on the best process and steps to
take to go from ideas to released features.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
On 6 December 2017 at 19:33, Markus KARG wrote:
> Yes, but not everything needs a JEP always. Maybe what Phil has in mind is
> smal
t;> It is not even a "java specification". It can be evolved at an API level
>>> without a JSR.
>>> The JEP process is the main thing to be followed, although we also use CSRs
>>> too to track API.
>>> Consider it that anyone who is a contrib
track API.
> Consider it that anyone who is a contributor owns (not the right word ?) a
> piece of it too.
> So standing on the project is what matters. Not the company who pays you to
> work on it.
>
> -phil.
>
>> On 12/5/17, 8:21 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
>> Phil
ible.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Rosethorn Technology
> On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:36, jav...@use.startmail.com wrote:
>
> Sorry about all the typos previously.
>
> Question- why not use the code in awt ? I am not totally up on what's going
> on with the platforms' native render
+1
A full-featured API to enable rich text and syntax highlighting in editors is
*very* much needed. All the attempts I have seen at creating such editors with
JavaFX are basically “fudges”.
I have never seen HTMLEditor used in a real-world application.
> On 26 Nov 2017, at 10:40, jav...@use
Hi Laurent,
You have my full support. I have emailed your privately and believe we can
work together to improve JavaFX in the ways you mentioned.
BTW: MarlinFX is a truly awesome contribution. Thanks on behalf of the
JavaFX community!
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
ified vision to "make JavaFX great again" (only without the fake news,
alternate facts, rhetoric, gaffes and, of course... no comb-overs).
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia
On 24 September 2017 at 00:14, Mark Fortner wrote:
> I must have
Lisker wrote:
> I don't have any answer to those questions. A JEP is the only thing I can
> think of.
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, John-Val Rose
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has
>> demonstra
I know
*before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
Australia
On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker wrote:
> > What do you mea
actually going to “move forward” rather than
“sideways”.
Honestly though, if you’re not moving forward, you are really going backward as
you watch the rest of the world disappear over the horizon...
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> I didn&
to embed a browser in your JavaFX app (which is
actually a very common and valid requirement), wouldn't you want it to be at
least able to use Google Maps properly?
JavaFX is at a crossroads.
Please, let's take the right road...
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Roseth
ntegrate it.
>
> - Johan
>
>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:00 AM John-Val Rose wrote:
>> Thanks Nir.
>>
>> I am very aware of the formal processes involved but also cognisant of the
>> considerable time/delays and "red tape" that can be an u
ion of both resolutions and (especially) increase the velocity of
innovation?
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 11 Sep 2017, at 10:25, Nir Lisker wrote:
>
> I don't mind giving it a go but I wouldn't like doing the work and then it
> not getting implemented (if the result is a
at you are suggesting and what Sverre is requesting and what numerous
others are wanting, and I for one *want* them to become realities.
Quite frankly, I don't see these changes and innovations (especially) actually
being realised any other way.
Comments?
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief
...if only you could "bring your own" shader :-;
On 10 Sep 2017, at 21:04, Mike Hearn wrote:
>>
>> (And yes, the current JavaFX 3D features are extremely rudimentary and not
>> particularly useful. I don't expect them to be ever enhanced. They're
>> effectively "frozen". It's a harsh call but I
ever enhanced. They're
effectively "frozen". It's a harsh call but I think they were a mistake from
day one. We need a completely different alternative).
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology
> On 10 Sep 2017, at 08:16, Scott Palmer w
mission will be easier if
Oracle guide and assist me...
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 10 Sep 2017, at 01:06, Mike Hearn wrote:
>
> I'm not on the FX team, but I'd suggest just starting work on it and see
> how far you get. You might duplicate some of the research the
ore feedback than to say that I'd very much appreciate
> such an effort.
> Are you aware of this project/product? https://www.teamdev.com/jxbrowser
> Michael
>
>> Am 08.09.17 um 12:54 schrieb John-Val Rose:
>> This is a genuinely serious issue and a genuinely s
This is a genuinely serious issue and a genuinely sincere offer of helping as
much as I can.
Some response would be greatly appreciated...
> On 6 Sep 2017, at 16:53, John-Val Rose wrote:
>
> Getting back to the original issue, it's good to know that work is being done
> t
+1
> On 8 Sep 2017, at 19:05, Sverre Moe wrote:
>
> Why is JavaFX not supporting open video container and codec?
> From Java 9 VP6 is deprecated.
>
> The only relevant supported coded for JavaFX is H.264/AVC. The only other
> alternative is VP6 which has been deprecated in Java 9.
>
> We canno
be "fatal" if we have to wait another 4 years or so
for Java 10 to get features that are already well developed in the competitor
products.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
Rosethorn Technology
> On 26 Aug 2017, at 23:46, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> +1
>
> ... to Any high perfo
FX API and not native WebKit rendering? This is of importance
to me in relation to a slightly different issue.
Thanks to both Michaels too for your informative input.
Graciously,
John-Val Rose
> On 26 Aug 2017, at 05:41, Michael wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan, hi all,
>
> I w
This *is* the problem: 7 years since a formal issue is raised and still we have
nothing.
As I said, WebGL support won't happen unless *we* make it happen and I'm in a
position where I have both a need and time to work on it. I'm sure others would
help too.
Once someone from Oracle responds to
ent internal Prism renderer implementations and would
> not just use the one cross platform engine. All this needs careful
> consideration.
>
> Michael
>
>> Am 25.08.17 um 02:12 schrieb John-Val Rose:
>> I have a couple of questions about the implementation of WebView
,*
*John-Val Rose*
*Chief Scientist/Architect*
*Rosethorn Technology*
*Australia*
67 matches
Mail list logo
