Re: error in tutorial

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,

Re: Gitter chat + StackOverflow [was: Concatenating transforms to scale positions but not objects]

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

Re: Update openjfx.io to JavFX12?

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

Re: Update openjfx.io to JavFX12?

+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

Re: openjfx-dev Digest, Vol 86, Issue 7

penjfx-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 to move the Cha

Re: Has any consideration been made to move the Charts into s separate module?

mentation???). 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 6-1-2019 10:43,

Re: Has any consideration been made to move the Charts into s separate module?

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” abou

Re: Has any consideration been made to move the Charts into s separate module?

, 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

Re: Has any consideration been made to move the Charts into s separate module?

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

Re: Q: Rotated labels, layout and reflow

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 >> sometimes has surprisi

Re: Q: Rotated labels, layout and reflow

hould 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) ;-) > > >

Re: Q: Rotated labels, layout and reflow

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

Re: 3D Canvas Node?

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

Re: JavaFX 11 on Android

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 sp

Re: Talk about OPENJFX's future

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

Re: which technology should give preference

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

Re: which technology should give preference

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

Re: which technology should give preference

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

Re: Is JavaFX going to truly be a community project?

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

Re: Is JavaFX going to truly be a community project?

to be as 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

Re: OpenGL deprecated in OS-X

evin, 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 deci

Re: OpenGL deprecated in OS-X

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

Re: Announcing EA builds of standalone JavaFX SDK

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 <johan@gluonhq.com> wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > Excellent work. > I confirm this is working for me. >

Re: future content of OpenJFX

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

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

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

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

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

Re: future content of OpenJFX

” may be much bigger than I thought, which would be great!!! > On 7 Feb 2018, at 07:49, John Neffenger <j...@status6.com> 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” >> ou

Re: future content of OpenJFX

o go “off road” to begin with. 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 <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>

Re: future content of OpenJFX

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.

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

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

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

> > Yes, probably me. > > Sent from iCloud > >> On Feb 03, 2018, at 09:35 PM, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> Well, then one of us is "off topic"... >> >> >> Kevin Rushforth: >> >> &qu

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

talking about the mechanics 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 <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stephe

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

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 <sdes...@icloud.com> wrote: > John, > > The point I am making is that Swift is catching up as a cross > platform toolki

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

r stake in the direction. > > Steve Desofi > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Feb 2, 2018, at 11:55 PM, John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think Kevin outlined in his opening post what would be considered "out of

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

endering 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-Val Rose On 3

Re: More community participation in JavaFX

of tremendous quality, utility and value! Graciously, John-Val Rose > On 2 Feb 2018, at 11:03, Richard Steiger <rstei...@ensemblesoft.net> wrote: > > Hi Kevin, > > As a long-time observer of the OpenJFX project, let me put all my chips at > this point on making builds m

Re: Innovation “essay”

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

Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

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 of Johan Vos and Gluon. All JavaFX developers owe them enormous gratit

Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

at 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 Rosethorn Technology On 6 December 2017 at 17:1

Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

st 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 <mar...@headcrashing.eu> wrote: > Yes, but not everything needs a JEP always. Maybe what Phil has in min

Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

d help out. > > -phil. > >> On 12/5/17, 9:27 PM, John-Val Rose wrote: >> Well, that’s all fine but you didn’t address the issue of working with >> someone within Oracle to get these innovations done. >> >> Sure, I could just toil away by myself but c

Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

though we also use CSRs > too to 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

Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

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 rendering eng

Re: JavaOne slides about Marlin/FX renderer

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

Re: OpenJFX initiative

aFX 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 <phidia...@gmail.com> wrote: > I must hav

Re: OpenJFX initiative

Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> 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 <johnvalr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth

Re: OpenJFX initiative

ally 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 <nlis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What do you mean by “go with Joha

Re: OpenJFX initiative

is 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 <nlis...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: WebView and WebGL

h 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 Rosethorn Technology > On 12 Sep 2017, at 04:51, Jan Tosovsky <

Re: Innovation (Was: WebView and WebGL)

t will be possible to > integrate it. > > - Johan > > >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:00 AM John-Val Rose <johnvalr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Nir. >> >> I am very aware of the formal processes involved but also cognisant of the >> considerable

Re: Innovation (Was: WebView and WebGL)

resolutions and (especially) increase the velocity of innovation? Graciously, John-Val Rose > On 11 Sep 2017, at 10:25, Nir Lisker <nlis...@gmail.com> 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

Innovation (Was: WebView and WebGL)

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 Scientist/Architect Rosethorn Technology > On 10 Sep 2017, at

Re: WebView and WebGL

...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

Re: WebView and WebGL

nced. 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 <swpal...@gmail.com&

Re: WebView and WebGL

ier if Oracle guide and assist me... Graciously, John-Val Rose > On 10 Sep 2017, at 01:06, Mike Hearn <m...@plan99.net> 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 FX en

Re: WebView and WebGL

; 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 <swpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > ... to Any high

Re: WebView and WebGL

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

Re: WebView and WebGL

needs different 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