priorities

[John-Val Rose]

+1

Everything you stated is what I also believe.

I think there really needs to be work done on performance, especially with the scene graph.

As for keeping-up with the latest technologies, I truly believe that WebGL, WebAssembly, Angle, Metal, & Vulkan need to be looked at seriously.

I think WebGL (or a switch to using Chromium instead of WebKit) is of the greatest important, even if for no other reason than to permit JavaFX to make full use of Google Maps.

And I’d just like to thank you personally Johan for all the incredible work you and your Gluon colleagues have put in to not only keeping JavaFX alive but to really guide and inspire all of us to use and contribute to OpenJFX.

Graciously,

John-Val Rose
Rosethorn Technology

> On 3 Oct 2018, at 18:56, Johan Vos <johan.vos at gluonhq.com> wrote:
> 
> Every now and then people ask about the roadmap of JavaFX. Apart from my
> general answer that the roadmap is mainly determined by the people who
> contribute, here are some personal thoughts:
> 
> * JavaFX can be used in a large number of vertical markets, with totally
> different requirements. We should be careful not to introduce
> API's/features that make JavaFX a conflicting component in some markets.
> 
> * There are a number of third party libraries/frameworks (e.g. ControlsFX,
> FlexGanttFX, e(fx)clipse, Gluon Maps,...) that provide additional
> functionality. I think OpenJFX has to provide the foundation for these
> specific frameworks, rather than include their functionality.
> 
> * hardware accelerated rendering is key. We have to keep up with recent and
> future evolutions.
> 
> * cross-platform is key.
> 
> In summary, I think that we have to make sure that JavaFX provides the most
> performant rendering, and the most useful API allowing third parties to
> create libraries and applications on a variety of platforms.
> 
> - Johan