OpenJFX initiative

Nir Lisker nlisker at
Fri Sep 22 23:08:30 UTC 2017

> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”?

What he said here:

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:08 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at>

> The concept of “innovation” no longer seems to apply to JavaFX, at least
> not from Oracle’s perspective.
> If you read the official list of changes in the just-released Java 9, AWT
> (yes, AWT) has more changes than JavaFX and even then the only significant
> change is to make it Jigsaw compatible.
> A product like this needs a very clear “roadmap” of development and
> introduction of new features but the link on the Oracle JavaFX
> Documentation page for “roadmap” leads to a place known as “404”. I hope
> that’s not a room number in “Hotel California”.
> So, innovation for JavaFX falls back as a community responsibility but is
> very difficult without any cooperation from Oracle themselves.
> I personally have not been able to get any response from them except
> “float your ideas on the mailing list to see what interest there is”. Note,
> that “interest” is only from the community itself... and then what?
> What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”? Yes, he and Gluon
> are fantastic innovators and have built a small company of top-notch talent
> and are able to crank-out new products and enhancements with impressive
> frequency.
> Are you suggesting we all start similar companies? Johan is a former
> Oracle employee and probably has a well-established relationship with them
> and access to knowledge that others don’t. Personally, I love what he’s
> doing and hope Gluon expands rapidly to enable as much innovation as
> possible.
> But what about the rest of us? What are we supposed to do? How do we get
> large-scale changes to happen?
> Well, I don’t know. But we’re better as a team than a bunch of individuals
> each trying to get some feature implemented in an uncoordinated fashion.
> The other real issue is that everyone seems to have their own perspective
> on exactly what JavaFX is or should be. That makes the community
> ineffective unless someone manages innovation for JavaFX in general.
> I’d be happy to be that person but sadly, it’s not for me to make that
> call. Johan is like the de facto “Head of Innovation for JavaFX” at the
> moment but he has his own agenda (mainly in the mobile space) and monetises
> his efforts.
> That’s what businesses do.
> So, I think we need to firstly establish just what JavaFX is *now* (even
> this is not clear) and also what it *should be* (where we coalesce
> everyone’s own ideas) so we can move forward.
> That is of course *if* JavaFX 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 <nlisker at> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't see any update on the idea for our initiative. Are we still
> waiting for a reply from Oracle or do we go with Johan Vos's experience?
> >
> > I think that the least we can do without putting any work into this is
> have a semi-formal list of people who would like to work on this  and a
> list of what features we would be working on. I feel that I still don't
> know the scope of what we are trying to do, only pieces of it.

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list