Innovation (Was: WebView and WebGL)

[Johan Vos]

>From experience, I can tell you that if you do the work and write
high-quality code that makes OpenJFX better, I'm sure it will be possible
to integrate it.

- Johan


On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 3:00 AM John-Val Rose <johnvalrose at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >>
>