Innovation (Was: WebView and WebGL)

[John-Val Rose]

Thanks Nir.

I am very aware of the formal processes involved but also cognisant of the considerable time/delays and "red tape" that can be an undesirable consequence of such formality.

I'm also not a "hope for the best" kinda guy.

I think first we really need (and really hope) someone from Oracle to make an official comment on all these matters to ensure, as you suggest, that any or all of our efforts are "successful".

There are multiple ways for a "lack of success" to result that have nothing to do with the quality, correctness, efficiency or even the "value" of our contributions.

There's absolutely no point in devoting one nanosecond of anyone's time to a project doomed to fail for reasons beyond our control.

Oracle: can you please comment on these issues and the various ways to expedite implementation of both resolutions and (especially) increase the velocity of innovation?

Graciously,

John-Val Rose

> On 11 Sep 2017, at 10:25, Nir Lisker <nlisker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't mind giving it a go but I wouldn't like doing the work and then it
> not getting implemented (if the result is a success).
> 
> Personally, I think that the first thing we should do is make a list of
> what exactly it is we are trying to do if only to get a sense of the
> magnitude and be sure we have enough of the right people to finish it. Then
> we would, in all probability, need to write a JEP (
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1) which also means we will need a project
> lead. Then follow the JEP road and hope for the best I guess.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nir,
>> 
>> You're not "hijacking" anything - I think it's been established that this
>> a broader "3D API support" issue. In fact, even broader than that.
>> 
>> I'm only new on the JavaFX "scene" but I've looked through the history and
>> tried to analyse the present and anticipate the future.
>> 
>> It seems that there are 2 main groups of JavaFX users: one that takes it
>> as it is and makes the most of it, sometimes in stunning and amazing ways
>> but they don't seem to like to rock the boat or try to force the
>> improvement of JavaFX itself so much.
>> 
>> Then there's the others who get frustrated, ask for change, offer to
>> enable change or put on their boots and make change. A lot of them seem to
>> get "burned".
>> 
>> We need people from both camps: one to showcase what can be done with what
>> we have in surprising ways and the others to drive innovation.
>> 
>> I'm clearly in the 2nd group and I'm finding that there are quite a few of
>> us. I'm not so afraid of "getting burned" as we all take risks in life and
>> if you are passionate about something, you just go with it.
>> 
>> But, the most disappointing aspect is that Oracle staff are often "M.I.A."
>> when discussing innovation and the future feature plans. As in this thread,
>> Oracle haven't exactly been chiming-in (and yes, I know a lot of it has
> I don't mind giving it a go but I wouldn't like doing the work and then it
> not getting implemented (if the result is a success).
> 
> Personally, I think that the first thing we should do is make a list of
> what exactly it is we are trying to do if only to get a sense of the
> magnitude and be sure we have enough of the right people to finish it. Then
> we would, in all probability, need to write a JEP (
> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/1) which also means we will need a project
> lead. Then follow the JEP road and hope for the best I guess.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 11:29 PM, John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Nir,
>> 
>> You're not "hijacking" anything - I think it's been established that this
>> a broader "3D API support" issue. In fact, even broader than that.
>> 
>> I'm only new on the JavaFX "scene" but I've looked through the history and
>> tried to analyse the present and anticipate the future.
>> 
>> It seems that there are 2 main groups of JavaFX users: one that takes it
>> as it is and makes the most of it, sometimes in stunning and amazing ways
>> but they don't seem to like to rock the boat or try to force the
>> improvement of JavaFX itself so much.
>> 
>> Then there's the others who get frustrated, ask for change, offer to
>> enable change or put on their boots and make change. A lot of them seem to
>> get "burned".
>> 
>> We need people from both camps: one to showcase what can be done with what
>> we have in surprising ways and the others to drive innovation.
>> 
>> I'm clearly in the 2nd group and I'm finding that there are quite a few of
>> us. I'm not so afraid of "getting burned" as we all take risks in life and
>> if you are passionate about something, you just go with it.
>> 
>> But, the most disappointing aspect is that Oracle staff are often "M.I.A."
>> when discussing innovation and the future feature plans. As in this thread,
>> Oracle haven't exactly been chiming-in (and yes, I know a lot of it has
>> occurred outside of normal working hours).
>> 
>> So Nir, Laurent (and the many others who are putting their hands up),
>> perhaps we should collaborate and not just "casually". OpenJFX is, after
>> all, "open" so perhaps a more formally coordinated team of motivated
>> community members can pool our resources and skills and "Just do it" (with
>> or without Oracle's help).
>> 
>> I like what you are suggesting and what Sverre is requesting and what
>> numerous others are wanting, and I for one *want* them to become realities.
>> 
>> Quite frankly, I don't see these changes and innovations (especially)
>> actually being realised any other way.
>> 
>> Comments?
>> 
>> Graciously,
>> 
>> John-Val Rose
>> Chief Scientist/Architect
>> Rosethorn Technology
>> 
>>> On 10 Sep 2017, at 23:13, Nir Lisker <nlisker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I don't want to hijack the WebGL discussion but since it rolled into the
>> 3D
>>> library territory anyway I'll give my 2 cents.
>>> 
>>> 3D enhancement are indeed not planned for Java10 (at the minimum) and
>>> indeed you can't bring your own shader (asked already at
>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43622856/can-we-
>> implement-our-own-materials-in-javafx),
>>> but I agree with Mike - you can, maybe somewhat surprisingly, do quite a
>>> lot with what there is.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the most limiting feature is not supporting industry standards of
>>> 3D modeling via converters (import/export). It has been suggested (
>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8091851) but last activity was
>> 5
>>> years ago. As for shaders (materials), lightings etc., from what I
>> remember
>>> by looking around in the source, it will take some effort to rewrite the
>>> API to be able to accept custom ones but it's far from impossible. If
>> Phong
>>> is implemented there's little reason reason others won't fit (maybe
>>> reflective surfaces don't work). Similarly a directional light can be
>> based
>>> on the implemented point light be using a cone instead of a sphere.
>>> 
>>> We've employed some clever tricks to get adequate "advanced features"
>>> results and considering that all of it can be single-handedly run on iOS
>>> and Android with Gluon Mobile (specifically JavaFXPorts) I think there
>> *is*
>>> a future in this direction and I'm willing to team up with whomever is
>>> interested provided we can get minimal support from the Oracle team.
>>