Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)

[John-Val Rose]

Yes, I obviously need to know if anything I work on or design is going to
be accepted or is even wanted by the community as a whole, and as early on
in the process as possible.  Heck, if I had my way, JavaFX would be used to
build everything from forms to FPS games and highly complex and performant
3D visualizations.  And don't say it can't be done in Java - it can.
JavaMonkeyEngine can be used to create awesome games (for example).

Plus, I have never "done" a JEP but I believe it's quite a long and
involved process (?)

So, I would appreciate some clarification on the best process and steps to
take to go from ideas to released features.

​​
Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Chief Scientist/Architect
Rosethorn Technology

On 6 December 2017 at 19:33, Markus KARG <markus at headcrashing.eu> wrote:

> Yes, but not everything needs a JEP always. Maybe what Phil has in mind is
> small enough to be accepted without. Somebody has to decide before filing
> the JEP.
>
> -Markus
>
>
>
> From: Mario Torre [mailto:neugens.limasoftware at gmail.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 09:11
> To: Markus KARG
> Cc: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)
>
>
>
> I think Phil said that, the way to propose such changes is to file a Jep
> and discuss it here.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mario
>
>
>
> On Wed 6. Dec 2017 at 09:07, Markus KARG <markus at headcrashing.eu> wrote:
>
> I think what John actually asked for is whom to send his design upfront at
> the JFX team to get an initial judgement whether it is worth programming
> it, or whether it bears such flaws that it makes not much sense to invest
> any more time. Whether or not that decision is done by an Oracle employee
> or not, he simply needs to know whom to sent his proposal for early review.
>
> -Markus
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openjfx-dev [mailto:openjfx-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf
> Of Philip Race
> Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 06:50
> To: John-Val Rose
> Cc: openjfx-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: Innovation again (was Re: Text classes)
>
> There needs to be a viable community that is not just Oracle to support
> you here ..
> I think everyone has come to be dependent on Oracle to "be there".
> But if there is a specific community need that Oracle doesn't see as
> essential, then the community should help out.
>
> -phil.
>
> On 12/5/17, 9:27 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
> > Well, that’s all fine but you didn’t address the issue of working with
> someone within Oracle to get these innovations done.
> >
> > Sure, I could just toil away by myself but clearly it would be better
> all around if there was someone with much more extensive knowledge of
> JavaFX and its internals who was accessible when required.
> >
> > I would assume that a member of the Oracle JavaFX team would be such a
> person. If not, then who?
> >
> >> On 6 Dec 2017, at 15:53, Philip Race<philip.race at oracle.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think looking at it as an Oracle-owned and controlled project maybe
> the first mistake here.
> >> Yes it was closed source and then Oracle controlled, but not any more,
> OCA requirements aside.
> >> It is not even a "java specification". It can be evolved at an API
> level without a JSR.
> >> The JEP process is the main thing to be followed, although we also use
> CSRs too to track API.
> >> Consider it that anyone who is a contributor owns (not the right word
> ?) a piece of it too.
> >> So standing on the project is what matters. Not the company who pays
> you to work on it.
> >>
> >> -phil.
> >>
> >>> On 12/5/17, 8:21 PM, John-Val Rose wrote:
> >>> Phil et. al.,
> >>>
> >>> Whilst I’m not going to be quite as “passionate” as some on this issue
> (although I do understand the frustration), I would like to point out again
> that this is indeed a huge gap and it is critical that it is filled ASAP.
> >>>
> >>> Obviously a solution where every word in a text document is a Node
> would be unworkable so it would need to be architected from the ground up.
> >>>
> >>> I would be happy to work on such as feature, just as I was happy to
> work on implementing WebGL, but my hesitation is concern over the
> assistance and involvement from Oracle.
> >>>
> >>> If I am going to have to spend months working on something without any
> or only minimal involvement from Oracle, only to find at the end that
> Oracle either doesn’t like the design, implementation or something else
> then it is wasted time I’ll never get back.
> >>>
> >>> There are lots of other innovations too that I would like to see in
> JavaFX but I just don’t “feel the enthusiasm” from Oracle.
> >>>
> >>> If there is someone on the JavaFX team who would be willing to work
> with me (at least in some capacity), please have them contact me privately
> via email.
> >>>
> >>> The innovations I could work on and contribute include:
> >>>
> >>> 1. WebGL support in WebView
> >>> 2. Better text support including text documents&   rich text editors
> etc.
> >>> 3. Significant improvements in scene graph rendering speed using
> >>> modern game-engine style structures and algorithms
> >>>
> >>> JavaFX cannot survive without innovation and I am keen to see it
> happen and contribute as much as possible.
> >>>
> >>> Graciously,
> >>>
> >>> John-Val Rose
> >>> Rosethorn Technology
> >>>
> >>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 11:36, javafx at use.startmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry about all the typos previously.
> >>>>
> >>>> Question- why not use the code in awt ? I am not totally up on what's
> going on with the platforms' native rendering engines ( meaning, I have no
> idea whatsoever) or how they have changed, but golly it sure does still
> work pretty well.
> >>>>
> >>>>   At least it seems to me looking at awt that a smallish number of
> things are 1) well defined by the native platofrm and 2) would more or less
> translate directly to an Java API and 3) from those small number of
> building blocks, (Font and Glyph metrics and this kind of thing)   text
> line layout algorithms can be written by ordinary civilians along with all
> the other stuff that goes into a text editor.
> >>>>
> >>>> And yes, everything does look easy when someone else is going to do
> it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>