nlisker at gmail.com
Sat Sep 23 00:24:30 UTC 2017
I don't have any answer to those questions. A JEP is the only thing I can
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com>
> Yes, well I'm sure there's a lot of truth to that as Johan has
> But, I think it's a bit of an over simplification.
> How do I know if *my* innovation (of say 9 months of effort) is "high-quality
> code that makes OpenJFX better"?
> I can do my best to write high-quality code but what exactly does "make
> OpenJFX better" mean? *I* might think it's better with WebGL and advanced
> 3D features but it seems most people disagree or are ambivalent towards
> such functionality.
> Who gets to say what does or doesn't get integrated? And, how do I know
> *before* I potentially waste my effort whether it will or won't "make
> OpenJFX better" or be integrated?
> John-Val Rose
> Chief Scientist/Architect
> Rosethorn Technology
> On 23 September 2017 at 09:08, Nir Lisker <nlisker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > What do you mean by “go with Johan Vos’s experience”?
>> What he said here: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:08 AM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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...
>>> John-Val Rose
>>> > On 22 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Nir Lisker <nlisker at gmail.com> 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