Support for Apple Extensions

[Robert Krüger]

Couldn't agree more. The resources needed for getting a "native" JFX
look & feel to really work like its native counterpart would be
considerable because it would mean reinventing or exposing a lot of
native API (because as someone correctly mentioned above, it is not
only about look but a lot of behaviour and once you dive into the
details of this it gets pretty deep or it will again be a half-assed
compromise bound to be dissed by die-hard Mac purists anyway). IMHO
those resources could be spent a lot better in making the platform
robust and high-quality in its core aspects like font rendering and
overall UI performance and enabling developers to help themselves in
some key areas (see discussions about exposing an OpenGL context).
Suboptimal resizing or repainting or animation performance are much
more likely to make users perceive your app as unprofessional and
"feel like Java" than a well-crafted individual look & feel. As Scott
said, there are a lot of extremely successful applications on the Mac
that went their own, very individual way as far as look and feel is
concerned.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Scott Palmer <swpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
> A native look and feel is a secondary issue.   Even Apple plays around with
> the look and feel.  For instance the "pro" apps like Final Cut Pro, have a
> very diferent look and feel from the "regular" apps, and nobody cares.
>  Caspian and Modena will only bug a small number of the die hard Mac
> purists, compared to the big things like not having a screen menu bar or a
> proper Application menu, open events etc..
> Other features mentioned like the notification of the computer sleeping,
> putting files in the trash, etc. are all things that should have
> cross-platform APIs since they are concepts that are common to Windows and
> Linux as well.  I would much rather see a supported cross-platform API that
> just does the right thing on the current platform than to have to code OS
> specific things.  I think that is were the Orcale man hours need to be
> focused, and let the community continue to do things like AquaFX to handle
> the rest..
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Fabrizio Giudici <
> Fabrizio.Giudici at tidalwave.it> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 21:16:41 +0200, Will Herrmann <wjherrmann at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  AquaFX is one such third party class that tries to bridge this gap via
>>> CSS skins, although it's my understanding that it is still undergoing some
>>> major revisions so I would be reluctant to use it in a production
>>>
>>
>> Sure, in fact it's targeted at JDK 8 (see my original mail) because of
>> skins, I suppose. But what about quality? Do you think it won't be optimal
>> and the only acceptable solution is a native l&f?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect @ Tidalwave s.a.s.
>> "We make Java work. Everywhere."
>> http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/**blog <http://tidalwave.it/fabrizio/blog> -
>> fabrizio.giudici at tidalwave.it
>>