Can JavaFX do CAD?

[Pedro Duque Vieira]

>
> How can I get it to be on that real world usecases section? Or does it not
> have the necessary requirements to be in it?

I meant this has a real question. Not being sarcastic...

Regards,

@John: On the JavaFx community site they have a section with references to
> real world usecases.
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/community/index.html
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:40 AM, John C. Turnbull <ozemale at ozemail.com.au
> >wrote:
> > Like Daniel said, none of what we say is in any way a criticism of the
> > JavaFX development team who, in my view and that of the entire community,
> > are doing an awesome job.
> >
> >
> >
> > For mine, all the shortcomings of JavaFX (perceived or actual) can be
> blown
> > away if I could just demonstrate what JavaFX is really capable of.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have Ensemble from Oracle and also Ensemble from JFXtras (whose demo
> > incidentally doesn't run since Java 7 Update 21).  With Oracle Ensemble
> we
> > can see that JavaFX has quite a nice set of basic controls and that it at
> > least supports very simple animations.  With JFXtras Ensemble we can see
> > that very nice controls are possible but unfortunately many of these are
> of
> > a rather "whimsical" nature and not the kind of control you would use in
> > everyday business apps.
> >
> >
> >
> > What else is there?
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course we have rock stars like Gerrit Grunwald who frequently post
> > awesome controls and code snippets but we really need something that
> brings
> > it altogether in a kick-arse showcase.  Preferably a whole suite of
> killer
> > apps that highlights everything JavaFX is capable of.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, that would require a lot of effort but IMHO it is absolutely worth
> it.
> > Without it, people like me really struggle to sell JavaFX or even get a
> > handle on its true potential.  I can promise people that more advanced
> > things are "possible" but given that they write the cheques, they need to
> > see it for themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> > And how about a website of JavaFX reference sites?  There must be big
> > companies out there using it right?
> >
> >
> >
> > In the end it doesn't matter if I personally see enormous potential for
> > JavaFX if I cannot convince others to see what I see.
> >
> >
> >
> > -jct
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Daniel Zwolenski [mailto:zonski at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 09:12
> > To: John C. Turnbull
> > Cc: Richard Bair; openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD?
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> > I've failed to convince multiple clients that they should use JFX because
> > of
> >
> >
> > a) lack of examples of what it can really do, and how to make it do that
> > (e.g. in enterprise space we have
> > http://static.springsource.org/docs/petclinic.html)
> >
> > b) lack of any big or notable players out there actually using it, or at
> > least publicly saying they are using it
> >
> > c) the deployment hassles vs the ease of html app deployment and the true
> > cross-platform-ness of html
> >
> >
> >
> > After actually getting one client to trust me on it and use it on a real,
> > commercial app (startup), I hit problems with performance (broad
> > interpretation of the term, not 'framerate'), crippling deployment and
> auto
> > updating issues, missing basic features (e.g. maximise button, coming in
> > 2014 I believe?), unpredictability of CSS styling, and a lack of best
> > practices for things like how to do CAD-like diagrams (not so much render
> > performance but zooming, panning, mouse input, layering, dragging, etc).
> >
> >
> >
> > Like John, I've been guilty of letting my frustration show in these
> forums.
> > Like John, it's because I want so badly for JavaFX to be the platform I
> > develop on, it has the potential to be awesome, but things (that seem
> > obvious and small to me) completely stop it from being usable in a real
> > world situation for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not that we think the JFX team aren't slogging their guts out,
> clearly
> > you are. It's just that in some key areas, there are small-ish blocks
> that
> > stop the whole rocket from launching. To then see a whole lot of effort
> be
> > poured into things like binary CSS/FXML compilation, Pi platform support
> > (that's more important than iOS/Android, really?), web deployment
> patches,
> > or even 3D (as cool as that is), just knocks me about. Obviously your
> > priorities are coming from somewhere different to ours, but the way you
> > prioritise is unfathomable to me and that definitely adds to the
> > frustration.
> >
> >
> >
> > At this stage, I am not suggesting my clients use JFX (I actively
> > discourage
> > them from it, in their interest). Mobile is the area that has the
> potential
> > to bring JFX back into usable for me as it can compete easier with the
> > current technologies (which are all crap). Maybe if that ends up working
> (a
> > long, long road to go on that and very much an 'if') then it will seep
> back
> > into the desktop for me, but at a minimum the desktop deployment options
> > will need to be improved before that's even a possibility.
> >
> >
> > I've come to accept that I am not in the primary target audience for
> > JavaFX,
> > maybe a secondary target. I don't understand who the primary target is
> > though, and knowing/accepting doesn't make it any less frustrating. I
> keep
> > involved in the hope that I might get a usable platform somewhere along
> the
> > way but it's more of a hope than a belief.
> >
> >
> >
> > So nothing really new above, but just adding my voice to John's. JavaFX
> is
> > definitely not production ready for me, my clients and the types of apps
> I
> > build (e.g. consumer facing online systems, enterprise/backoffice
> systems,
> > form/data systems, diagramming systems). One day I hope it will be, but
> > it's
> > moving extremely slowly or not at all in the areas that would make it so
> > for
> > me. Meanwhile the competitors (primarily JavaScript based solutions) are
> > improving rapidly in the areas where they have traditionally been weak.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, John C. Turnbull <
> ozemale at ozemail.com.au
> > <mailto:ozemale at ozemail.com.au> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I have to stop posting late at night, that one came across as really
> ANGRY!
> >
> > It's not anger, it's passion... and frustration.
> >
> > I am frustrated because I spend much of my day trying to convince my
> > employer that we should be using JavaFX.  They ask me questions like:
> >
> > "What happens if Oracle abandons JavaFX just like Sun did with JMF,
> Java3D,
> > JOGL etc. ?"
> >
> > I say:
> >
> > "This is Oracle, not Sun."
> >
> > They say:
> >
> > "Can you show me what JavaFX can do? There must be examples out there
> > right?"
> >
> > And I say:
> >
> > "Sure, here's Ensemble."
> >
> > They say:
> >
> > "OK, so it has a nice set of basic controls and can do simple animations
> > but
> > what about more complex things like Flash?"
> >
> > ...hence the dancing cat reference.
> >
> > It's not that my employer *needs* dancing cats, it's just that they need
> to
> > see that there is more to JavaFX than red circle transitions.  I can't
> even
> > prove to them that JavaFX is capable of dancing cats.  They don't have
> the
> > resources to fund me to develop something more sophisticated but they
> tell
> > me that if JavaFX truly was a "mature" technology (like I tell them) then
> > where are all the examples?
> >
> > I am finding it difficult to convince them that JavaFX is production
> ready
> > and is not still in "experimental" mode because I am unable to
> demonstrate
> > its true capabilities or refer them to many examples of people (and I
> mean
> > big companies) actually using it.
> >
> > The main concerns of my employer and I think many companies in a similar
> > situation is that JavaFX won't survive long term and that it is only
> really
> > suitable for form based applications.  Then of course there is the whole
> > "HTML5 runs on all platforms" argument but that's another story...
> >
> > So this is why I think it's imperative that Oracle invests in developing
> a
> > true showcase application for JavaFX.  Something that non-technical
> people
> > (like managers who make decisions about where the money goes) can look at
> > it
> > and go "wow!".
> >
> > I am just not getting my managers to go "wow" at what I can show them
> with
> > JavaFX at the moment.
> >
> > Every comment or apparent criticism I post about JavaFX is from the
> > perspective that I am trying to deal with real-world problems and people
> > who
> > require proof (such as demos, reference sites etc.) and not because I
> > myself
> > think JavaFX is not up to scratch.
> >
> > It's quite the opposite actually.
> >
> > I am a very, very strong believer and supporter of JavaFX and have many
> > reasons both personal and professional as to why I want it to be a
> massive
> > success.  As I have said before, there are plenty of people who praise
> > JavaFX and tend to avoid the very real issues that are restricting its
> > adoption.  I just think we have to face these issues head on if we are to
> > compete in what is a very cut-throat industry.
> >
> > -jct
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Bair [mailto:richard.bair at oracle.com
> > <mailto:richard.bair at oracle.com> ]
> > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 01:40
> > To: John C. Turnbull
> > Cc: 'Daniel Zwolenski'; openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > <mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD?
> >
> > > For Flash, there are literally millions of examples of
> > > fancy/complex/impressive graphics and animations out there that can be
> > > really impressive at times.  I have not seen ONE such example in
> JavaFX!
> >
> > Point to one?
> >
> > Have you seen any of the JavaOne examples? The movie wall or movies on a
> > stack of 3D cubes was pretty good. But I guess you're not interested in
> the
> > 3D aspect? What is it you are looking for exactly? Different people (on
> > this
> > list) have had different perceptions on both (a) what's important and (b)
> > what kind of graphics they're interested in. Most people would deride the
> > dancing cat as being totally irrelevant to the types of applications
> > they're
> > trying to build (the basis for much of flash animations is shape
> morphing,
> > you can find some code here https://gist.github.com/gontard/5029764).
> >
> > On the other hand, JavaFX is not a replacement for OpenGL. Drawing 25
> > million lines is just not something we can do right now, especially in a
> > resource constrained environment. I've already commented on the memory
> > overhead (which would continue to be an issue even if the drawing part of
> > the problem were solved).
> >
> > I've pushed to graphics repo the StretchyGrid, which is about 300k line
> > nodes (the actual amount is variable, see the javadoc comments). At 300k
> > nodes the scene graph overhead is negligible on the FX side, dirty opts
> is
> > taking a long time to run, and painting is really slow.
> >
> > PULSE: 347 [122ms:222ms]
> > T12 (8 +0ms): CSS Pass
> > T12 (8 +0ms): Layout Pass
> > T12 (47 +53ms): Waiting for previous rendering
> > T12 (100 +1ms): Copy state to render graph
> > T10 (101 +16ms): Dirty Opts Computed
> > T10 (117 +105ms): Painted
> > Counters:
> >         Nodes rendered: 306565
> >         Nodes visited during render: 306565
> >
> > If I were doing this by hand in open GL, I think the drawing would be
> > essentially free, if I used LINES with GL anti-aliasing, I could send 'em
> > all down to the card in a single shot (and if I had a modern GL I could
> do
> > LINES + FXAA or one of the other per-pixel AA algorithms available and it
> > would turn out pretty nice). Because our shapes don't implement the
> non-AA
> > path, and our AA involves software rasterization and uploading of
> pixels, I
> > expect that to be the main source of the 105ms time being spent here.
> >
> > Also I noticed (by turning on prism.showdirty=true) that the entire grid
> is
> > being painted every time, even though visually it looks like only a small
> > subset actually needs to be changed. But that's really a minor thing, as
> I
> > said, drawing this many lines should basically be free if I configure
> > "smooth" to false in the app. Except that right now it is totally not
> > implemented (in NGShape):
> >
> >     public void setAntialiased(boolean aa) {
> >         // We don't support aliased shapes at this time
> >     }
> >
> > The point of stretchy grid is not to say "wow look at this amazing demo".
> > The point is to say "what happens if I put in 300K nodes. Where does the
> > system start to fall over?".
> >
> > Richard=
> >
> >
> >
> >


On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Pedro Duque Vieira <
pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have an Swing/JavaFX app, the site is: http://modellus.co
>
> How can I get it to be on that real world usecases section? Or does it not
> have the necessary requirements to be in it?
>
> Thanks, best regards,
>
> @John: On the JavaFx community site they have a section with references to
>> real world usecases.
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/community/index.html
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:40 AM, John C. Turnbull <ozemale at ozemail.com.au
>> >wrote:
>> > Like Daniel said, none of what we say is in any way a criticism of the
>> > JavaFX development team who, in my view and that of the entire
>> community,
>> > are doing an awesome job.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For mine, all the shortcomings of JavaFX (perceived or actual) can be
>> blown
>> > away if I could just demonstrate what JavaFX is really capable of.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We have Ensemble from Oracle and also Ensemble from JFXtras (whose demo
>> > incidentally doesn't run since Java 7 Update 21).  With Oracle Ensemble
>> we
>> > can see that JavaFX has quite a nice set of basic controls and that it
>> at
>> > least supports very simple animations.  With JFXtras Ensemble we can see
>> > that very nice controls are possible but unfortunately many of these
>> are of
>> > a rather "whimsical" nature and not the kind of control you would use in
>> > everyday business apps.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What else is there?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course we have rock stars like Gerrit Grunwald who frequently post
>> > awesome controls and code snippets but we really need something that
>> brings
>> > it altogether in a kick-arse showcase.  Preferably a whole suite of
>> killer
>> > apps that highlights everything JavaFX is capable of.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, that would require a lot of effort but IMHO it is absolutely worth
>> it.
>> > Without it, people like me really struggle to sell JavaFX or even get a
>> > handle on its true potential.  I can promise people that more advanced
>> > things are "possible" but given that they write the cheques, they need
>> to
>> > see it for themselves.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And how about a website of JavaFX reference sites?  There must be big
>> > companies out there using it right?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In the end it doesn't matter if I personally see enormous potential for
>> > JavaFX if I cannot convince others to see what I see.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -jct
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Daniel Zwolenski [mailto:zonski at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 09:12
>> > To: John C. Turnbull
>> > Cc: Richard Bair; openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I've failed to convince multiple clients that they should use JFX
>> because
>> > of
>> >
>> >
>> > a) lack of examples of what it can really do, and how to make it do that
>> > (e.g. in enterprise space we have
>> > http://static.springsource.org/docs/petclinic.html)
>> >
>> > b) lack of any big or notable players out there actually using it, or at
>> > least publicly saying they are using it
>> >
>> > c) the deployment hassles vs the ease of html app deployment and the
>> true
>> > cross-platform-ness of html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > After actually getting one client to trust me on it and use it on a
>> real,
>> > commercial app (startup), I hit problems with performance (broad
>> > interpretation of the term, not 'framerate'), crippling deployment and
>> auto
>> > updating issues, missing basic features (e.g. maximise button, coming in
>> > 2014 I believe?), unpredictability of CSS styling, and a lack of best
>> > practices for things like how to do CAD-like diagrams (not so much
>> render
>> > performance but zooming, panning, mouse input, layering, dragging, etc).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Like John, I've been guilty of letting my frustration show in these
>> forums.
>> > Like John, it's because I want so badly for JavaFX to be the platform I
>> > develop on, it has the potential to be awesome, but things (that seem
>> > obvious and small to me) completely stop it from being usable in a real
>> > world situation for me.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's not that we think the JFX team aren't slogging their guts out,
>> clearly
>> > you are. It's just that in some key areas, there are small-ish blocks
>> that
>> > stop the whole rocket from launching. To then see a whole lot of effort
>> be
>> > poured into things like binary CSS/FXML compilation, Pi platform support
>> > (that's more important than iOS/Android, really?), web deployment
>> patches,
>> > or even 3D (as cool as that is), just knocks me about. Obviously your
>> > priorities are coming from somewhere different to ours, but the way you
>> > prioritise is unfathomable to me and that definitely adds to the
>> > frustration.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At this stage, I am not suggesting my clients use JFX (I actively
>> > discourage
>> > them from it, in their interest). Mobile is the area that has the
>> potential
>> > to bring JFX back into usable for me as it can compete easier with the
>> > current technologies (which are all crap). Maybe if that ends up
>> working (a
>> > long, long road to go on that and very much an 'if') then it will seep
>> back
>> > into the desktop for me, but at a minimum the desktop deployment options
>> > will need to be improved before that's even a possibility.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've come to accept that I am not in the primary target audience for
>> > JavaFX,
>> > maybe a secondary target. I don't understand who the primary target is
>> > though, and knowing/accepting doesn't make it any less frustrating. I
>> keep
>> > involved in the hope that I might get a usable platform somewhere along
>> the
>> > way but it's more of a hope than a belief.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > So nothing really new above, but just adding my voice to John's. JavaFX
>> is
>> > definitely not production ready for me, my clients and the types of
>> apps I
>> > build (e.g. consumer facing online systems, enterprise/backoffice
>> systems,
>> > form/data systems, diagramming systems). One day I hope it will be, but
>> > it's
>> > moving extremely slowly or not at all in the areas that would make it so
>> > for
>> > me. Meanwhile the competitors (primarily JavaScript based solutions) are
>> > improving rapidly in the areas where they have traditionally been weak.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 8:30 AM, John C. Turnbull <
>> ozemale at ozemail.com.au
>> > <mailto:ozemale at ozemail.com.au> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > I have to stop posting late at night, that one came across as really
>> ANGRY!
>> >
>> > It's not anger, it's passion... and frustration.
>> >
>> > I am frustrated because I spend much of my day trying to convince my
>> > employer that we should be using JavaFX.  They ask me questions like:
>> >
>> > "What happens if Oracle abandons JavaFX just like Sun did with JMF,
>> Java3D,
>> > JOGL etc. ?"
>> >
>> > I say:
>> >
>> > "This is Oracle, not Sun."
>> >
>> > They say:
>> >
>> > "Can you show me what JavaFX can do? There must be examples out there
>> > right?"
>> >
>> > And I say:
>> >
>> > "Sure, here's Ensemble."
>> >
>> > They say:
>> >
>> > "OK, so it has a nice set of basic controls and can do simple animations
>> > but
>> > what about more complex things like Flash?"
>> >
>> > ...hence the dancing cat reference.
>> >
>> > It's not that my employer *needs* dancing cats, it's just that they
>> need to
>> > see that there is more to JavaFX than red circle transitions.  I can't
>> even
>> > prove to them that JavaFX is capable of dancing cats.  They don't have
>> the
>> > resources to fund me to develop something more sophisticated but they
>> tell
>> > me that if JavaFX truly was a "mature" technology (like I tell them)
>> then
>> > where are all the examples?
>> >
>> > I am finding it difficult to convince them that JavaFX is production
>> ready
>> > and is not still in "experimental" mode because I am unable to
>> demonstrate
>> > its true capabilities or refer them to many examples of people (and I
>> mean
>> > big companies) actually using it.
>> >
>> > The main concerns of my employer and I think many companies in a similar
>> > situation is that JavaFX won't survive long term and that it is only
>> really
>> > suitable for form based applications.  Then of course there is the whole
>> > "HTML5 runs on all platforms" argument but that's another story...
>> >
>> > So this is why I think it's imperative that Oracle invests in
>> developing a
>> > true showcase application for JavaFX.  Something that non-technical
>> people
>> > (like managers who make decisions about where the money goes) can look
>> at
>> > it
>> > and go "wow!".
>> >
>> > I am just not getting my managers to go "wow" at what I can show them
>> with
>> > JavaFX at the moment.
>> >
>> > Every comment or apparent criticism I post about JavaFX is from the
>> > perspective that I am trying to deal with real-world problems and people
>> > who
>> > require proof (such as demos, reference sites etc.) and not because I
>> > myself
>> > think JavaFX is not up to scratch.
>> >
>> > It's quite the opposite actually.
>> >
>> > I am a very, very strong believer and supporter of JavaFX and have many
>> > reasons both personal and professional as to why I want it to be a
>> massive
>> > success.  As I have said before, there are plenty of people who praise
>> > JavaFX and tend to avoid the very real issues that are restricting its
>> > adoption.  I just think we have to face these issues head on if we are
>> to
>> > compete in what is a very cut-throat industry.
>> >
>> > -jct
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Richard Bair [mailto:richard.bair at oracle.com
>> > <mailto:richard.bair at oracle.com> ]
>> > Sent: Saturday, 27 July 2013 01:40
>> > To: John C. Turnbull
>> > Cc: 'Daniel Zwolenski'; openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
>> > <mailto:openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net>
>> > Subject: Re: Can JavaFX do CAD?
>> >
>> > > For Flash, there are literally millions of examples of
>> > > fancy/complex/impressive graphics and animations out there that can be
>> > > really impressive at times.  I have not seen ONE such example in
>> JavaFX!
>> >
>> > Point to one?
>> >
>> > Have you seen any of the JavaOne examples? The movie wall or movies on a
>> > stack of 3D cubes was pretty good. But I guess you're not interested in
>> the
>> > 3D aspect? What is it you are looking for exactly? Different people (on
>> > this
>> > list) have had different perceptions on both (a) what's important and
>> (b)
>> > what kind of graphics they're interested in. Most people would deride
>> the
>> > dancing cat as being totally irrelevant to the types of applications
>> > they're
>> > trying to build (the basis for much of flash animations is shape
>> morphing,
>> > you can find some code here https://gist.github.com/gontard/5029764).
>> >
>> > On the other hand, JavaFX is not a replacement for OpenGL. Drawing 25
>> > million lines is just not something we can do right now, especially in a
>> > resource constrained environment. I've already commented on the memory
>> > overhead (which would continue to be an issue even if the drawing part
>> of
>> > the problem were solved).
>> >
>> > I've pushed to graphics repo the StretchyGrid, which is about 300k line
>> > nodes (the actual amount is variable, see the javadoc comments). At 300k
>> > nodes the scene graph overhead is negligible on the FX side, dirty opts
>> is
>> > taking a long time to run, and painting is really slow.
>> >
>> > PULSE: 347 [122ms:222ms]
>> > T12 (8 +0ms): CSS Pass
>> > T12 (8 +0ms): Layout Pass
>> > T12 (47 +53ms): Waiting for previous rendering
>> > T12 (100 +1ms): Copy state to render graph
>> > T10 (101 +16ms): Dirty Opts Computed
>> > T10 (117 +105ms): Painted
>> > Counters:
>> >         Nodes rendered: 306565
>> >         Nodes visited during render: 306565
>> >
>> > If I were doing this by hand in open GL, I think the drawing would be
>> > essentially free, if I used LINES with GL anti-aliasing, I could send
>> 'em
>> > all down to the card in a single shot (and if I had a modern GL I could
>> do
>> > LINES + FXAA or one of the other per-pixel AA algorithms available and
>> it
>> > would turn out pretty nice). Because our shapes don't implement the
>> non-AA
>> > path, and our AA involves software rasterization and uploading of
>> pixels, I
>> > expect that to be the main source of the 105ms time being spent here.
>> >
>> > Also I noticed (by turning on prism.showdirty=true) that the entire
>> grid is
>> > being painted every time, even though visually it looks like only a
>> small
>> > subset actually needs to be changed. But that's really a minor thing,
>> as I
>> > said, drawing this many lines should basically be free if I configure
>> > "smooth" to false in the app. Except that right now it is totally not
>> > implemented (in NGShape):
>> >
>> >     public void setAntialiased(boolean aa) {
>> >         // We don't support aliased shapes at this time
>> >     }
>> >
>> > The point of stretchy grid is not to say "wow look at this amazing
>> demo".
>> > The point is to say "what happens if I put in 300K nodes. Where does the
>> > system start to fall over?".
>> >
>> > Richard=
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
> --
> Pedro Duque Vieira




-- 
Pedro Duque Vieira