markspace

On 2/15/2012 7:25 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:

> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.


Or a comp.lang.java.gui, as the swing news group is low traffic enough
to bear additional traffic for jfx.

Novice

Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in
news:4f3d91f3$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk:

> On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, Novice wrote:
>> Knute Johnson<nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> wrote in
>> news:jhhsv4$uov$1 @dont-email.me:
>>> I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
>>> javafx.com website.
>>>
>>> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
>>> SE? Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE
>>> specification for the foreseeable future, and is included in the
>>> JRE. On one hand, Swing is widely used in existing Java desktop
>>> applications, but relies on an old architecture, which requires a
>>> certain level of expertise and specialization. On the other hand,
>>> JavaFX features a set of modern UI controls that can be skinned
>>> using standard CSS techniques. While we recommend developers to
>>> leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when building new
>>> applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX
>> within
>>> the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
>>> applications."
>>>
>>> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go
>>> to really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know
>>> what it is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces
>>> that I
>> usually
>>> do for work with it though.
>>>
>>> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.
>>
>> My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent
>> messing around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great
>> expertise. However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows
>> XP/Vista/7 at the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not
>> that mature yet and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I
>> submit that JavaFX may not be worthy of a great deal of development
>> effort yet, at least for those who want to develop things that are
>> going to run on multiple platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.
>>
>> It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
>> investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
>> later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear
>> that it will be made available for all the platforms on which we
>> expect to run our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating
>> that Mac and Linux versions WILL be available at the same or similar
>> level to the Windows versions by some not-too-distant date is
>> probably all I need to get more enthusiastic about JavaFX....
>
> Did you read the text you commented on?
>
> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
> SE? Yes."
>
> It says that JavaFX will become part of Java SE.
>
> Then it will be on all platforms with (that version
> or higher of) Java SE.
>
That will be fine when it is true but my point was that it this hasn't
happened yet and Oracle hasn't committed to a specific date when it will
happen.

I'm just a little leery about vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time
something like this was promised and then failed to happen for one reason
or another.

It might be a little premature to embrace JavaFX given that Oracle's
intentions may not materialize.

--
Novice

Roedy Green

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
<nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>javafx.com website.
you have to install the 32- and 64-bit versions of JavaFX separately
on the customer machine. The JDK installs it (always on the C: drive),
but not the JRE.

I found it very flaky running the demo apps, though the apps, when
they worked, were fairly impressive visually.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com
One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is
"If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".

Arne Vajhøj

On 2/17/2012 12:24 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
> <nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
> someone who said :
>
>> javafx.com website.
> you have to install the 32- and 64-bit versions of JavaFX separately
> on the customer machine. The JDK installs it (always on the C: drive),
> but not the JRE.
>
> I found it very flaky running the demo apps, though the apps, when
> they worked, were fairly impressive visually.

The multimedia stuff may be a bit flaky as they must be
dependent on external software to work.

But normal GUI stuff seems rock solid to me.

Arne

Arne Vajhøj

On 2/17/2012 11:35 AM, Novice wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj<arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote in
> news:4f3d91f3$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk:
>
>> On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, Novice wrote:
>>> Knute Johnson<nospam@rabbitbrush.frazmtn.com> wrote in
>>> news:jhhsv4$uov$1 @dont-email.me:
>>>> I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
>>>> javafx.com website.
>>>>
>>>> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
>>>> SE? Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE
>>>> specification for the foreseeable future, and is included in the
>>>> JRE. On one hand, Swing is widely used in existing Java desktop
>>>> applications, but relies on an old architecture, which requires a
>>>> certain level of expertise and specialization. On the other hand,
>>>> JavaFX features a set of modern UI controls that can be skinned
>>>> using standard CSS techniques. While we recommend developers to
>>>> leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when building new
>>>> applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX
>>> within
>>>> the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
>>>> applications."
>>>>
>>>> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go
>>>> to really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know
>>>> what it is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces
>>>> that I
>>> usually
>>>> do for work with it though.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.
>>>
>>> My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent
>>> messing around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great
>>> expertise. However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows
>>> XP/Vista/7 at the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not
>>> that mature yet and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I
>>> submit that JavaFX may not be worthy of a great deal of development
>>> effort yet, at least for those who want to develop things that are
>>> going to run on multiple platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.
>>>
>>> It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
>>> investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
>>> later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear
>>> that it will be made available for all the platforms on which we
>>> expect to run our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating
>>> that Mac and Linux versions WILL be available at the same or similar
>>> level to the Windows versions by some not-too-distant date is
>>> probably all I need to get more enthusiastic about JavaFX....
>>
>> Did you read the text you commented on?
>>
>> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
>> SE? Yes."
>>
>> It says that JavaFX will become part of Java SE.
>>
>> Then it will be on all platforms with (that version
>> or higher of) Java SE.
>>
> That will be fine when it is true but my point was that it this hasn't
> happened yet and Oracle hasn't committed to a specific date when it will
> happen.
>
> I'm just a little leery about vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time
> something like this was promised and then failed to happen for one reason
> or another.
>
> It might be a little premature to embrace JavaFX given that Oracle's
> intentions may not materialize.

It is true that we do not know what version of Java SE it will be in.
Nor do we know when that version will be available as a standard. And
we obviously do not know when all Java implementations has implemented
that standard (for some server platforms 1-2 years delay is common).

But Oracle has said that it will be part of SE.

And as I read the docs then Oracle has started distributing
JavaFX with JRE from 7u2.

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...ads/index.html

<quote>
Starting with Java SE 7 Update 2 and JavaFX 2.0.2, the JavaFX Runtime is
co-installed every time the JRE is installed.
</quote>

(that must be for Windows only)

To me that is about as good as it an be for a non-paying customer.

Arne

Wanja Gayk

In article <4f3d96c1$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
says...
>
> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
> > On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
> >
> > I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
> > thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
>
> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.

Kind regards,
Wanja

--
...Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to
Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with,
when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

Arne Vajhøj

On 2/20/2012 2:27 PM, Wanja ***k wrote:
> In article<4f3d96c1$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
> says...
>>
>> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
>>>
>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
>
> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.

The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
of functionality, layout and style.

Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
price to pay to achieve that.

Arne

Wanja Gayk

In article <4f42d9a5$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
says...

> >>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
> >>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
> >>
> >> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
> >
> > It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
> > that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
> > whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
> > On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
> > only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
> > I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.
>
> The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
> of functionality, layout and style.
>
> Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
> price to pay to achieve that.

You don't need fxml to achieve that.

you can have a class for the layout, a class for the application code
and a .css file for the style.

Kind regards,
Wanja


--
...Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down
dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to
Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with,
when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer]

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

Arne Vajhøj

On 2/20/2012 8:09 PM, Wanja ***k wrote:
> In article<4f42d9a5$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
> says...
>
>>>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
>>>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
>>>>
>>>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
>>>
>>> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
>>> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
>>> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
>>> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
>>> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
>>> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.
>>
>> The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
>> of functionality, layout and style.
>>
>> Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
>> price to pay to achieve that.
>
> You don't need fxml to achieve that.
>
> you can have a class for the layout, a class for the application code
> and a .css file for the style.

True, but with the FXML-Java split the technology assist with
enforcing the split.

Arne

Arne Vajhøj

On 2/20/2012 8:28 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/20/2012 8:09 PM, Wanja ***k wrote:
>> In article<4f42d9a5$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
>> says...
>>
>>>>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
>>>>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
>>>>
>>>> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
>>>> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature
>>>> and
>>>> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
>>>> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
>>>> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
>>>> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.
>>>
>>> The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
>>> of functionality, layout and style.
>>>
>>> Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
>>> price to pay to achieve that.
>>
>> You don't need fxml to achieve that.
>>
>> you can have a class for the layout, a class for the application code
>> and a .css file for the style.
>
> True, but with the FXML-Java split the technology assist with
> enforcing the split.

Note that I will not recommend adding JavaScript to the
mix, because then suddenly there is a somewhat blurred line
between what is in Java and what is in JavaScript.

Arne