JavaFX at JavaOne: Mixed Reactions

Home

News: JavaFX at JavaOne: Mixed Reactions

  1. JavaFX at JavaOne: Mixed Reactions (75 messages)

    Sun announced what they're posing as a Flash-killer: JavaFX, a runtime library and scripting language for rich clients. It describes forms and applications in terms of properties and values. The question is: is the Java runtime the right delivery platform for something like this? Many vocal developers say not. Cedric Beust, for example, questions the definition itself. "Isn't Swing good enough? There is absolutely no explanation why they are inventing another layer." He also asks why Groovy wasn't used, noting that Sun's reasoning behind that seemed... odd. If they'd accused Groovy of being too large, or having too many dependencies, but instead JavaFX avoids Groovy because it's "too generic." Likewise, Java Kecil 2X said this:
    I have very big doubts about the immediate feasibility of this. There are just too many entrenched interests and competing stakeholders in the consumer and pervasive Java markets to make such a grandiose goal a reality any time soon. However, if Sun simply displays some perserverance (much like Microsoft) and keeps this JavaFX as a running goal for the foreseaable future (as opposed to quietly dumping it when reality throws some wrenches in the works), then you may see some good things happening in the Java GUI space. I think people want to see not only big dreams from Sun but also big stamina.
    Eric Burke pointed out that JavaFX had all of the problems of Java Webstart, while Silverlight has more of a Flash-like experience. He said that JavaFX needed to focus more on multimedia to compete. Further, Alan Williamson said that "JavaFX - Sun javax.swings and misses once again."
    You see the JRE, the actual runtime, is horrendously bloated, ill-managed, a pain to install and even more of a pain to integrate with all the different browsers on your desktop. It also has this wonderful feature of pausing your whole machine while it starts up. Booting up a platform that is over 40MB in size, does take a wee while, and to ensure the user doesn't completely panic, most times it will throw up the most god awful visual gray window letting you know it wasn't a virus that caused your browser to stutter, it was just Java! Flash has pretty much won the browser war in terms of rich media plugins. They cracked the biggest nut and cracked it well; streaming video both in and out. Can you imagine YouTube being as successful if everyone had to watch a video via a Java applet? Can you imagine the amount of dialogs, security warnings, configuration hacking that would be required by your user to ask permission to use their local webcam? It just was never on the cards.
    This is all rather negative. Sun seems to be very excited about JavaFX; perhaps they're focusing more on the mobile market than the desktop market, with the desktop being more of a convenient afterthought. What do you think?

    Threaded Messages (75)

  2. Are there problems? definitely. Are there issues to be resolved in order to make this thing fly? of course. The main concern I have is that we shouldn't give up the desktop and just acquiesce to Flex/Flash and Silverlight. Flex is damn sexy, but try writing non-trivial applications in restricted environments with firewalls and its like a really good looking date with no conversation skills. Silverlight and managed code integration for me gets closer to nirvana, except its in the wrong runtime ;-) (at some point, the powers that be decided to be cruel and make any hopes of getting java bytecode compatibility into the flash vm a non starter). Applets, Webstart, JRE bloat, yes yes, these are serious issues, and hopefully, they will be solved and get both the development, deployment, distribution, and especially user experience will get much much better. However, I would ask both Eric and Alan to install the darn plugins, run through the non-trivial demo (like studio moto or tesla) look at the markup, and tell us again why this isn't at least a start into getting Java back into the RIA space and onto the desktops, through the browser or otherwise.
  3. Development tools[ Go to top ]

    To beat flash, Sun need good development tools that can be handled by non programmer content creators. A new scripting language will not do them any good.
  4. Re: Development tools[ Go to top ]

    To beat flash, Sun need good development tools that can be handled by non programmer content creators. A new scripting language will not do them any good.
    That's not necessarily true. It's not as much about the developers. Knowledgable developrs will develop applications in pure Java/Swing if they have to. The reason they don't, is because their user base would shrink, though the popularity of web apps. Ilya
  5. Re: Development tools[ Go to top ]

    because their user base would shrink, though the popularity of web apps.
    Why? If people want something bad enough, they will do what they need to. And it isn't that tough. Not anymore. Trust me. LOTS of people use the NASCAR applets. And I bet MOST of them are barely functional with PCs.
  6. About Silverlight[ Go to top ]

    A couple of remarks: 1. Silverlight is similar to Java on the desktop/JavaWeb start: you get a full CLR runtime with a limited set of base classes that are mainly focused on XAML/WPF. 2. It is only available for Windows and MacOS (granted, this is the majority of clients, but a lot of Linux users are left out). 3. It is NOT open source - the only part of Silverlight that is covered by the Microsoft Permissive License (BSD-like) is the DLR and IronRuby & IronPython. These *require* the CLR to be present. 4. Silverlight is still in its very early alpha stages. Best, Gerald http://blog.beuchelt.com/
  7. IF they wanna it to succeed[ Go to top ]

    1-Small browser plugin(end users tend not to download plugins more than 2MB ie:flash1mb,silverlight 1.5mb) 2-Immediate work for a non programmers ide to compete with flash and blend 3-IT REALLY NEED ANOTHER SIMPLE LAYER ON TO OF SWING,remember u r competing in a market whom the target audience is non programmers,swing is complex for programmers
  8. Re: IF they wanna it to succeed[ Go to top ]

    1-Small browser plugin(end users tend not to download plugins more than 2MB ie:flash1mb,silverlight 1.5mb)
    2-Immediate work for a non programmers ide to compete with flash and blend
    3-IT REALLY NEED ANOTHER SIMPLE LAYER ON TO OF SWING,remember u r competing in a market whom the target audience is non programmers,swing is complex for programmers
    The guy makes sense....God help me, I'm actually starting to get excited about this, at least for the mobile space....as to the desktop, it'll take more than a fancy name to get all those designers to switch over to using JavaFX.
  9. "Consumer" JRE[ Go to top ]

    What was also announced at JavaOne was a project called Java Kernel. This project basically wants to "break apart" the JRE into smaller chunks and then download "on-demand" other parts of the JRE when needed. They posted that they got the "core" JRE down to 2mb (or was it 4mb). In any case, Sun is aware of the issue and is actively working on it, in fact I get the feeling it's probably top on their list. This feature will not only appear for Java 1.7, but it will also appear for Java 1.6 in an update (maybe update 2)? I imagine Java Kernel will be released the same time JavaFX is done.
  10. Re: "Consumer" JRE[ Go to top ]

    Here's a link to a discussion involving a Sun engineer which is currently working on Java Kernel project, where he explains its current situation: http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=216142 Very good news on it!
  11. Re: "Consumer" JRE[ Go to top ]

    interesting. Silverlight on my system consumes about 11 megs of space, Flash is about 4.5 megs. Even when the JRE gets paired down, it really needs to be instantaneous start up wise.
  12. Sun announced what they're posing as a Flash-killer:
    Did a Sun JavaOne speaker actually say that? Let's hope not.
    Many vocal developers say not. Cedric Beust, for example, questions the definition itself. "Isn't Swing good enough? There is absolutely no explanation why they are inventing another layer." He also asks why Groovy wasn't used, noting that Sun's reasoning behind that seemed... odd. If they'd accused Groovy of being too large, or having too many dependencies, but instead JavaFX avoids Groovy because it's "too generic."
    The question has already been answered. Are applets and WebStart good enough? Why would they use Groovy? Why wouldn't they use Java?
    Eric Burke pointed out that JavaFX had all of the problems of Java Webstart, while Silverlight has more of a Flash-like experience. He said that JavaFX needed to focus more on multimedia to compete.
    Besides a more declarative-like language to describe a UI, what are the multimedia offerings of this?
    You see the JRE, the actual runtime, is horrendously bloated, ill-managed, a pain to install and even more of a pain to integrate with all the different browsers on your desktop. It also has this wonderful feature of pausing your whole machine while it starts up. Booting up a platform that is over 40MB in size, does take a wee while, and to ensure the user doesn't completely panic, most times it will throw up the most god awful visual gray window letting you know it wasn't a virus that caused your browser to stutter, it was just Java! Flash has pretty much won the browser war in terms of rich media plugins. They cracked the biggest nut and cracked it well; streaming video both in and out. Can you imagine YouTube being as successful if everyone had to watch a video via a Java applet? Can you imagine the amount of dialogs, security warnings, configuration hacking that would be required by your user to ask permission to use their local webcam? It just was never on the cards.
    The Silvelight alpha weighs in at about 4 meg now, and includes the CLR, heavily-stripped down .NET assemblies, and some other assemblies to be able to compile Python and Ruby on the fly. I smell a FXflop if things aren't changed.
  13. Sun announced what they're posing as a Flash-killer:


    Did a Sun JavaOne speaker actually say that? Let's hope not.

    I was wondering the same thing. It's like calling Linux a windows desktop killer.
  14. I was wondering the same thing. It's like calling Linux a windows desktop killer.
    When actually, Windows is turning out to be a pretty good Windows desktop killer. Seriously, as a career-long linux-desktop-avoider, nothing has done more to make me want to switch to Ubuntu more than Vista has.
  15. When actually, Windows is turning out to be a pretty good Windows desktop killer. Seriously, as a career-long linux-desktop-avoider, nothing has done more to make me want to switch to Ubuntu more than Vista has.
    The fate of Windows rests on your personal decision to use or not to use Windows. Industry analysts are awaiting your decision.
  16. I was wondering the same thing. It's like calling Linux a windows desktop killer.


    When actually, Windows is turning out to be a pretty good Windows desktop killer. Seriously, as a career-long linux-desktop-avoider, nothing has done more to make me want to switch to Ubuntu more than Vista has.
    I don't disagree, though I tried switching to a Linux desktop a year ago and ran back crying. It's just not a desktop OS IMO, great server OS though. Now I'm a happy OS X user and never looked back.
  17. Mixed reactions is about right. JavaFX is just bizarre. Positioning it as a Silverlight killer is Sun just trying to muddy the waters because they've been caught on the back foot by Microsoft. It's clearly not a Silverlight / Apollo killer but I suspect it's all that Sun had at short notice. As for JavaFX itself. It's a crazy little scripting language, that's for certain. It's got various functional language do hickies; lambda's; properties; concise class, object and array literals; automatic watches on internal state which can be bound to or have triggers watch for. BUT... it's so damn specialised. PS, to the JavaFX team. If you need to persist, it would also be nice to have some cross cutting features in there somewhere to act a bit like CSS.
  18. Here's an idea[ Go to top ]

    Since this is getting almost universally panned in the Java world, why doesn't Sun leverage the fact that Java is completely open source now and set up a site where teams can compete to come up with a stripped down JRE along with the libraries that a flash/silverlight killer really needs? Offer up $50/100k for a Joint Copyright Assignment *if* Sun accepts one of them.
  19. Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Wow, you folks are a tough audience. Sure JavaFX Script presently runs on the full JRE, but I think Sun probably has plans for it to run on JavaFX ;-) Now what that is I am not sure - I'm not at JavaOne - but I assume it is a much stripped down JRE. Perhaps in the future, consumers will have the choice of installing JavaFX or the full Java SE runtime. Perhaps the JavaFX runtime will be able to download (and save) other parts of the Java SE runtime as it needs. I think Sun has focussed on the Script part of JavaFX at this JavaOne because the smaller RTE is not ready - as well, a declarative GUI scripting environment makes for much better demos etc. Finally, I think the declarative nature of JavaFX Script is a great move, away from "general purpose" programming languages, something more focussed on rich interface development that "anyone" can easily use. Cheers, Ashley. -- Ashley Aitken Perth, Western Australia mrhatken at mac dot com
  20. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Wow, you folks are a tough audience.
    We have every right to be. There is no excuse for Sun's total crap track record on the applet/webstart front. I repeat NO EXCUSE!
  21. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Wow, you folks are a tough audience.


    We have every right to be. There is no excuse for Sun's total crap track record on the applet/webstart front. I repeat NO EXCUSE!
    Sorry, but a lot of the blame lies elsewhere. If the majority of your customers want server-side stuff, that is where you are gonna spend your time. If my customers demand a web app even though I know a rich client is better I am gonna be doing a web app. Or nothing. I am using Web Start/Swing VERY succcessfully. Are there some glitches? Sure. If a developer had any clue, it is just not that tough. If you have tough requirements - everything will be tough.
  22. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    If a developer had any clue, it is just not that tough. If you have tough requirements - everything will be tough.
    The failures of webstart/applets have nothing to do with the developer. It is primarily a deployment problem of the JRE itself. There are many reasons that affect different people. JRE is too big, requires too many permissions to be installed, incompatibilities with different versions of the JRE, etc etc The bottom line is that unless your have control over all the workstations you are deploying an app to you can't count on a JRE to be there. Can you count of flash to be there? The answer is yes. Until you can count on a working JRE to be on the users workstation then java(anything) on the client side will never be widely successful outside of tightly controlled corporate networks. It may get there someday, but the fact that it is not there now after all these years is a disgrace.
    If the majority of your customers want...
    My customers are everyone on the web. In general web users expect a flash like installation process. Right now deploying an applet to the internet is just asking for customer complaints and lot of customer support emails.
  23. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    The failures of webstart/applets have nothing to do with the developer. It is primarily a deployment problem of the JRE itself. There are many reasons that affect different people. JRE is too big, requires too many permissions to be installed, incompatibilities with different versions of the JRE, etc etc
    Yes they do. If developers targeted Swing then Sun would have spent time on it. Case in point - What are they doing now? But anyway, I wasn't just "blaming" the developers. I was blaming project managers, managers, CEO's, etc. Everyone who thought web apps were the future for all application development. I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users shouldn't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment. I like I said, I am using it(Web Start) , with no issues, with a large group of people that I have not seen in a year. I agree that applets are somewhat a pain. But Web Start is not. Someone on this thread mentioned Clickone. You think Java is a pain about permissions, you should try .Net.
    The bottom line is that unless your have control over all the workstations you are deploying an app to you can't count on a JRE to be there.
    Ok. Underdstood. I suggest you create something users can't live without.
    an you count of flash to be there? The answer is yes.
    No you can't. I have had to install Flash or reinstall it. And I can't get it to work with FireFox on my laptop so I have to resort to IE to listen to XM radio.
    My customers are everyone on the web. In general web users expect a flash like installation process. Right now deploying an applet to the internet is just asking for customer complaints and lot of customer support emails.
    You missed the point. WE are Sun's customer. And you are using flash. So why should they work Swing and Applets and Web Start?
  24. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin.
    Is there an url for us to see your Webstart app or is it internal? .V
  25. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin.


    Is there an url for us to see your Webstart app or is it internal?

    .V
    Private network. Sorry. Btw, Just updated Java 1.6. Showed up in the system tray and it updated. Easy, simple and it worked.
  26. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users should't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment.
    The popularity of flash has nothing to do with corporate environments. It's ubiquitous and installs the same whether you've never used a PC before, power users, or in your coporate environment. I wish people would stop mentioning big corporate environments as if they are the start all and end all of all infrastructures. There are other software delivery methods and there are definitelly more home/small business users than "corporate environments". As mentioned, any app requiring a flash plugin enjoys its simple distribution mechanism. Try to explain to a non-IT user how to install Java. Besides going through the web site hoops to agree to licenses, etc..., you then have to download this 15MB installer and run it manually. Compare that with one click flash plugin installer. You go to a site that requires a particular version of flash, if you don't have it you get a popup that asks to install it, you click OK and within a minute you're in business. Sun must do something about the distribution model if they want to even become a viable choice in the RIA market. Ilya
  27. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users should't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment.


    The popularity of flash has nothing to do with corporate environments.
    I didn't say it did or didn't. My point was that only in locked down environments (ie Corporate) is permissions an issue.
    It's ubiquitous and installs the same whether you've never used a PC before, power users, or in your coporate environment.
    No it isn't as i have show before.
    I wish people would stop mentioning big corporate environments as if they are the start all and end all of all infrastructures.
    I wish people would understand what others are saying both contextually and grammatically.
    There are other software delivery methods and there are definitelly more home/small business users than "corporate environments"
    Sure. And Java works great there because they aren't locked down.
    As mentioned, any app requiring a flash plugin enjoys its simple distribution mechanism.
    If Flash is installed AND it installs correctly in the browser.
    Try to explain to a non-IT user how to install Java.
    Go to Java.com and click the button.
    Besides going through the web site hoops to agree to licenses, etc..., you then have to download this 15MB installer and run it manually.
    Uh, when was the last time you installed Java like a user would?
    Compare that with one click flash plugin installer.
    Just one click? Pretty much just like Java.
    You go to a site that requires a particular version of flash, if you don't have it you get a popup that asks to install it, you click OK and within a minute you're in business.
    Happens with Java 1.6. Try it. Hmmm. My browser doesn't do that with Flash. It tells me it ISN'T installed and i know it is.


    Sun must do something about the distribution model if they want to even become a viable choice in the RIA market.
    I agree a lighter version is needed. But for many things, it is good they way it is. If you don't need local access and don't do much in the way of "application".
  28. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    [quote]I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users shouldn't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment. I like I said, I am using it(Web Start) , with no issues, with a large group of people that I have not seen in a year. I agree that applets are somewhat a pain. But Web Start is not.[/quote] WebStart is not easy. I just measured what it takes to launch a very simple JWS App. *) 4 mouse clicks. *) 7 newly opened windows. *) several seconds, some spent on download time, some trying to figure out what each new window was about and what should I do next. Also take into account that I already had an installed Java SE. Instead the same app on flash would require nothing more than the wait for the download. See for your self: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450630/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450632/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450634/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450640/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450642/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450648/
  29. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    [quote]I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users shouldn't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment. I like I said, I am using it(Web Start) , with no issues, with a large group of people that I have not seen in a year. I agree that applets are somewhat a pain. But Web Start is not.[/quote]

    WebStart is not easy. I just measured what it takes to launch a very simple JWS App.

    *) 4 mouse clicks.
    *) 7 newly opened windows.
    *) several seconds, some spent on download time, some trying to figure out what each new window was about and what should I do next.

    Also take into account that I already had an installed Java SE. Instead the same app on flash would require nothing more than the wait for the download.
    I was so staggered to read in your post how hard you found it to start a Web Start app that I decided to try it out for myself (with the event of JavaFX I thought it was about time to investigate)... However, what I found was that all I had to do to start a Web Start app was to click once on the "Launch" button on the web page and the app started - no further intervention required and no additional windows shown. Couldn't have been simpler. I'm wondering why my experience was so completely seamless whilst yours was not. I'm running on Windows XP with an up-to-date JRE and got the same result using IE7 and Firefox 2. What OS and JRE version are you running? Also, out of interest, what were all the additional windows that you were shown?
  30. There might be some hopes here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=307. One of the problems with Java Webstart is that you have to uninstall (on windows) every single little app that you try out. This is ridiculous. It should give me that option. When I go to Add/Remove Program I have a plethora of JWS that wait to be removed. Sun decision making is truly weired many times.
  31. Try the friggin apps![ Go to top ]

    OK, distribution, startup time, definitely something to work on. For the others out there, please try the apps, install the NB or eclipse plugin, run the JavaFX canvas tutorial. I've been thinking way too much about this over the last couple of days, wavering back and forth, but this is what is so enticing for in JavaFX: looking at how simple it is to create the UI building blocks: the following creates a button (JButton) where the onclick event handler does an expand operation: Button { row: row column: column3 opaque: false mnemonic: H text: "Height" action: operation() { height = [0..80] dur 200; } }, I know, its not xml, it isn't xaml, it isn't mxml, but it just might be as good or better! I've got Flexbuilder on my system, expression blend, orcas in VPC with silverlight extension. Even though I am and have been heavily vested in Java Swing apps for the past several years, there is a sweet spot and efficiency that I am seeing: the ability to create simply the higher level (abstraction wise) building blocks for a UI, while still being able to execute logic/remoting/whatever code written in Java! I know Bruce likes Flex, Alan likes, Flex. Well for me, I _DON'T_ like Actionscript. I also don't like having to deal with network security firewall proxy issues in a locked down environment because selfishly, that is where my work is targeted, and if you can't understand all flavors or proxy challenges and get your visa stamp at the border than it doesn't matter how glitzy the UI is. then there is the context switching. Some people might be able to enjoy dedicated UI teams that can spend their day on safari reading Actionscript books. I don't ;-). I think the tooling will get there. Why am I optimistic? Because the JavaFX tutorial/pad for the JavaFX Script, as stripped down as it is, is already ahead of Microsoft Expression Blend and Orcas as well as Adobe FlexBuilder in terms of being able to simultaneously see the script and the UI output with changes made in an imperceptively quick blink of an eye. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency. Then I look at the FX Script editor file and it's only 336 lines long with pretty formatting!!! Once they get the distribution/startup/experience problem solved (big problem I know), and put the tooling in place, this will get very compelling. There is already an efficiency factor that might put them ahead. What would be great is a correspond library that makes calling/retrieving/binding POX/WS/JSON calls seemlessly taking care of all the security infrastructure (read: get the parameters from the browser you launched from and stop making excuses for how hard that is). Also, why not flip the whole thing around? Instead of doing silly socket communication between a browser embedded in a JFrame, look at where you are being installed (Windows, Linux, whatever) and directly inproc host the da*n thing! I might want to webstart my app (once all problems are fixed), but why not just embed IE or Firefox directly.
  32. Re: Try the friggin apps![ Go to top ]

    btw, the code i posted does an ANIMATION! One line of script, animating the height to full size over 200ms in 80 steps, that's the efficiency.
  33. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I'm wondering why my experience was so completely seamless whilst yours was not. I'm running on Windows XP with an up-to-date JRE and got the same result using IE7 and Firefox 2. What OS and JRE version are you running?

    Also, out of interest, what were all the additional windows that you were shown?
    I don't know why my experience was different, however as you can see over my original post I took a distinct screenshot of every step I encountered. I am running Windows XP Service Pack 2, Firefox 2, IE 6. Step #1: Click "launch" Step #2: New window "Opening spaceInvaders.jnlp" -> Click Ok Step #3: New window "Downloads" -> New Window "Java starting..." Step #4: New window "Java Web Start - Downloading application" Step #5: New window "Warning Security" -> Click "Run" Step #6: New Window "Windows Security Alert" -> Click "Unblock" So I had to click 4 times (5 if you count "open with: java" at step 2) and proceed through 6 intermediate windows opened (+1 of the application itself).
  34. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Nice pictures ;-). It looks like you've either never run a webstart app on that machine (for that javaws version) or you last pushed the "Ask me later" button. You will get that with anything that is trying to make a network call out of your machine for the first time, unless it is signed and trusted. If you had checked the "do this all the time" checkbox, you would neither get the option dialog to open/save from firefox, nor would you get the download dialog (I hate that myself). And the security question you will get with any non-trivial networked app, whether it is through .Net ClickOnce deployment or otherwise, what you were launching just wasn't code signed. So in some respects this might not be totally fair. However, I personally think it needs to be fixed. My 64 year old mother who has just started taking computer classes (and English is not her first language) should be able to pick up a PC from Best Buy, plug it in, and launch a Java program with minimal nagging (security stuff I can understand) and no nagging for local UI only stuff). That is where it needs to get to. I would say, Sun should aim to do better than even Flash, b/c there are situations as others have pointed out, where the install/plugin integration fails.
  35. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I'm wondering why my experience was so completely seamless whilst yours was not. I'm running on Windows XP with an up-to-date JRE and got the same result using IE7 and Firefox 2. What OS and JRE version are you running?

    Also, out of interest, what were all the additional windows that you were shown?
    I don't know why my experience was different, however as you can see over my original post I took a distinct screenshot of every step I encountered. I am running Windows XP Service Pack 2, Firefox 2, IE 6. Step #1: Click "launch" Step #2: New window "Opening spaceInvaders.jnlp" -> Click Ok Step #3: New window "Downloads" -> New Window "Java starting..." Step #4: New window "Java Web Start - Downloading application" Step #5: New window "Warning Security" -> Click "Run" Step #6: New Window "Windows Security Alert" -> Click "Unblock" So I had to click 4 times (5 if you count "open with: java" at step 2) and proceed through 6 intermediate windows opened (+1 of the application itself). Dimitris PS. This site needs an edit button! :)
  36. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I'm wondering why my experience was so completely seamless whilst yours was not. I'm running on Windows XP with an up-to-date JRE and got the same result using IE7 and Firefox 2. What OS and JRE version are you running?

    Also, out of interest, what were all the additional windows that you were shown?


    I don't know why my experience was different, however as you can see over my original post I took a distinct screenshot of every step I encountered. I am running Windows XP Service Pack 2, Firefox 2, IE 6.

    Step #1: Click "launch"
    Step #2: New window "Opening spaceInvaders.jnlp" -> Click Ok
    Step #3: New window "Downloads" -> New Window "Java starting..."
    Step #4: New window "Java Web Start - Downloading application"
    Step #5: New window "Warning Security" -> Click "Run"
    Step #6: New Window "Windows Security Alert" -> Click "Unblock"

    So I had to click 4 times (5 if you count "open with: java" at step 2) and proceed through 6 intermediate windows opened (+1 of the application itself).

    Dimitris

    PS. This site needs an edit button! :)
    Well, I just did it. I clicked twice. Once to launch (which could be done away and doesn't count. I HATE Flash things that just assume I want to see them and make me wait for them.) I then had to click for the security issue. That might not be necessary for this app, but it is for anything that accesses the local system. If Flash is gonna need to access my pc, it had better do that too. If you don't have Java 6 installed, get it and try again. Also, try it in IE because that is what the majority of users will do. Even so, your experience is minor. It is just not that tough and not that bad. Could it be better? Sure.
  37. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    [quote]I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users shouldn't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment. I like I said, I am using it(Web Start) , with no issues, with a large group of people that I have not seen in a year. I agree that applets are somewhat a pain. But Web Start is not.[/quote]

    WebStart is not easy. I just measured what it takes to launch a very simple JWS App.

    *) 4 mouse clicks.
    *) 7 newly opened windows.
    *) several seconds, some spent on download time, some trying to figure out what each new window was about and what should I do next.

    Also take into account that I already had an installed Java SE. Instead the same app on flash would require nothing more than the wait for the download.


    I was so staggered to read in your post how hard you found it to start a Web Start app that I decided to try it out for myself (with the event of JavaFX I thought it was about time to investigate)...

    However, what I found was that all I had to do to start a Web Start app was to click once on the "Launch" button on the web page and the app started - no further intervention required and no additional windows shown. Couldn't have been simpler.

    I'm wondering why my experience was so completely seamless whilst yours was not. I'm running on Windows XP with an up-to-date JRE and got the same result using IE7 and Firefox 2. What OS and JRE version are you running?

    Also, out of interest, what were all the additional windows that you were shown?
    I agree. People are trying to make it more difficult than it really is. I have people that can barely use a PC correctly using Web Started apps with no issues. The reality is that ALL software will have issues. Eventually. People are making mountains out of molehills. For some things, startup time is an issue.
  38. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    There seems to be an awful lot of negativity regarding the end-user Java experience - perhaps because many are frustrated by how long it has taken to get where we are now as much as by what still needs to be done to make things "perfect". However, it seems to me that all the technical issues are all very solvable if Sun really are serious about pushing Java in the RIA space. From a developer's point of view, I think some additional effort also needs to be spent on making it easier for developers to write RIAs in Java... The Swing Application Framework and Beans Binding JSRs seem like a good start - but they only go so far and don't seem to have very much resource behind them. The day when you can go into NetBeans/Eclipse/IntelliJ IDEA and create a new Swing application with a choice of window docking styles and menu bars, toolbars, status bars, etc can't come a minute too soon. I'm not quite sure where JavaFX Script fits into this picture? Also, there is an issue that Hibernate and (Hibernate-influenced) EJB3/JPA are focused on usage in a web-app environment and are much harder work when dealing with distributed remote Java clients. Ideally, the scope of the Bean Binding framework should be extended so that it can compete with Flex Data Services (/LifeCycle Data Services). I.e., rather than just dealing with 2-tier desktop app data binding, it should also facilitate dealing with persistence of distributed objects like FDS / LCDS does.
  39. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    However, it seems to me that all the technical issues are all very solvable if Sun really are serious about pushing Java in the RIA space.
    I agree. I don't think it would be hard for Sun to solve these problems. That is the part that makes me frustrated. These issues could have and should have been solved a long time ago. Lawrie, I know you didn't say this, but to all the people in this thread that think that the deployment issues with web start and applets are not that bad, I can not say strongly enough that *the current status quo in client side java is not good enough*!!!! I am voicing my frustrations not to blindly rip on Java, but because I think it deserves more.
  40. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    <Lawrie, I know you didn't say this, but to all the people in this thread that think that the deployment issues with web start and applets are not that bad, I can not say strongly enough that *the current status quo in client side java is not good enough*!!!!</blockquote> I think that pretty much all of us would agree with that. I know I do and have said it could get better. I just don't agree with the "Chicken Little" mentality.
  41. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]


    I think that pretty much all of us would agree with that. I know I do and have said it could get better. I just don't agree with the "Chicken Little" mentality.
    Hi Mark, I don't understand what you mean by the "Chicken Little" mentality, but you must admit that Sun has dropped the ball on this one on several occasions. Sometimes vendors need to place a stake in the ground, back an idea and lead. Both Microsoft (WPF, Silverlight, etc) and Adobe(Flex, Apollo) have done this and as a consequence have some pretty neat technology and are way ahead in this space. As for Sun, well if you let short term marketing goals determine your long term technology strategy, then you will end up with what we've got now: JRE bloat trying to be all things to all men. If you remember Java was meant to be "the" internet langauge of choice. So why the need for JavaFX 12+ years later? Paul.
  42. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    "Chicken Little"
    I suggest you google it. And read the previous posts.
    but you must admit that Sun has dropped the ball on this one on several occasions.
    Why must I? Are they a bit behind on somethings? Yes. Less than perfect? Yes. I don't believe they "dropped the ball". Sorry but having done VB for many years I can tell you Microsoft was once "behind". It is just the nature of the game. And are Microsoft and Adobe really ahead of the game? The technologies are still very new and some still not GA. There is one Microsoft technologies magazine that suggests that you stay away from WPF for now because it is so new. Honestly, I see this technology as being neat and cool and hip. But in the bigger picture, it is a niche market. I'd rather them spend their time on LINQ for Java. That would bring real value.
    If you remember Java was meant to be "the" internet langauge of choice.
    Read my previous posts. Things change.
  43. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Hi Mark,
    "Chicken Little"

    I suggest you google it. And read the previous posts.
    Well I wouldn't say "the sky is falling in", but the announcement of JavaFx is indicative of a malaise I've witnessed at Sun for quite sometime now. If you want to know what Sun will do next, just watch the Microsoft product announcements :^). I'm a bit late to the discussion so I am not fully up to speed, but I usually find most things you have to say reasonable. Which is why I am a bit surprised by this:
    but you must admit that Sun has dropped the ball on this one on several occasions.
    Why must I? Are they a bit behind on somethings? Yes. Less than perfect? Yes.
    I don't believe they "dropped the ball". Sorry but having done VB for many years I can tell you Microsoft was once "behind". It is just the nature of the game. And are Microsoft and Adobe really ahead of the game?
    Sun was way ahead when they launched Java and Applets back in 1995. A byte code VM based language that could be serialised and run on any client with a supporting browser over the web. At this time C# didn't even exists. My point is that Microsoft and Adobe have had a clear vision for the web for a long time now and Silverlight and Flex are just the latest manifestations of this vision. Microsoft has spent a long time getting Avalon/XAML/WinFx/WPF etc right (going back to around 2001 and when .Net was first launched, if my memory serves me right). Sun started off way out in the lead. Now they are resorting to doing what Microsoft have become famous for, announcing vapourware in an attempt to wrong foot the competition. I fail to see the long term technical strategy at play at Sun. Any objective person wishing to enter the web application development space today would not see Java as a leading contender (hence no Java in the iPhone). And if Java is not about web development, then what is it for? These are serious questions, and developers voting with their feet will determine the answers. Paul.
  44. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Sun was way ahead when they launched Java and Applets back in 1995.
    Yeah. Then all the sheep wanted server-side stuff. So Sun had no choice but to allow the client-side to languish. I wish they had not. I bet in their heart of hearts they knew it was wrong too.
    My point is that Microsoft and Adobe have had a clear vision for the web for a long time now and Silverlight and Flex are just the latest manifestations of this vision.
    I don't know. I think Microsoft has an intense need to keep people tied to Windows. That is their driving force. Adobe's, I am not so sure about. Having developed some decent sized apps I can say that doing the UI in XMLish markup and coding in "Scripting" languages is not the way to go. If it can function like it is not those things, then fine. I am not saying that Java is the only solution. I am saying the since I reuse a lot of things, there is not enough in Flex or XAML or Silverlight to make me consider them for much of anything. If I was doing web sites with some functionality and that was all - maybe. I have yet to see anything of any size and complexity. I have uses Flash apps too - and I don't care for them. Give me a web page or a real desktop app. I don't think the future of applications is JavaFX/Silverlight/Flash. I think we are swinging back towards the desktop (not client-server) being the client and the web being used by that. I can do that easily today with Java/Swing/Web Start.
    Now they are resorting to doing what Microsoft have become famous for, announcing vapourware in an attempt to wrong foot the competition.
    Sadly, Microsoft is still doing it too. Oh well. But in JavaFXs defense, Chris has been working on it and it does function. So it isn't vaporware.
    These are serious questions, and developers voting with their feet will determine the answers.
    True. I have a Winform app (as I have said) that I am converting to Java (Netbeans RCP)
  45. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Hi Mark, I understand you. I still think that Sun could have stuck to its guns with Applets whilst pursuing HTML based web apps aswell. I see no strategic direction here. As for the future of the web. I don't like XML as a declarative application language either. Take a look at this site where the guy has replaced XML with S-expressions and C# and ActionScript calbacks with Lisp and/or Smalltalk: http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/ This stuffs wraps both Flex and WPF and uses JSON for data transport. It is pretty neat IMO. Vistasmalltalk/Flex can be integrated with Rails too. I do not know the future and I commend you on your uncoventional technology choices but there are other non Java options out there. My view is Sun is much better off leading rather then following the pack. Whether Swing/Web start etc is infact a better path to follow is debatable, but you make a valid argument. Lets hope Sun decides were it truly wants to go. Paul.
  46. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Having developed some decent sized apps I can say that doing the UI in XMLish markup and coding in "Scripting" languages is not the way to go. If it can function like it is not those things, then fine.

    I am not saying that Java is the only solution. I am saying the since I reuse a lot of things, there is not enough in Flex or XAML or Silverlight to make me consider them for much of anything.
    I'm curĂ­ous how much you know about silverlight? XMLish markup (html) has worked really well for websites. Maybe you should take a look at Expression Blend to have a feel for how it is to develop with WPF (XAML is merely "serialized" WPF objects). Silverlight is very real. 1.0 is in beta with a go-live license. 1.1 which features the relevant parts of the .NET Framework is in public alfa. Which means that you get to develop rich internet applications using C#, XAML, .NET Framework, LINQ, Isolated storage, etc. The primary editor for XAML, Expression Blend, has already been released. I see one big advantage of having an XML based markup language: Tool support. You can easily develop "templates" by hand or using Blend. After that you can customize the app/behavior using XML tools like XPath, Dom, XSLT etc.
  47. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I'm curĂ­ous how much you know about silverlight?
    It is not even far along enough for it to be Brand New. So who knows anything much about it other than hearsay?
    XMLish markup (html) has worked really well for websites.
    Yup. Not so much for [complex] applications.
    Maybe you should take a look at Expression Blend to have a feel for how it is to develop with WPF (XAML is merely "serialized" WPF objects).
    Not much call for WPF yet. Still trying to get people off of ASP. :(
    Silverlight is very real. 1.0 is in beta with a go-live license. 1.1 which features the relevant parts of the .NET Framework is in public alfa. Which means that you get to develop rich internet applications using C#, XAML, .NET Framework, LINQ, Isolated storage, etc.
    I agree that it is interesting for Windows only applications. On the Java side JavaFX can do all those too. And right now.
    The primary editor for XAML, Expression Blend, has already been released.

    I see one big advantage of having an XML based markup language: Tool support.
    Just as long as I don't have to do it by hand or ever look at it.
    You can easily develop "templates" by hand ...
    Oh. :(
    XSLT
    I avoid that like the plague. I am not saying these are not interesting nor have any use. I just think they are limited and are squeezed between "pure" browser and Winforms (ie clickonce) and Swing(web start). I already have plans to use JavaFX to redo an app that is done in something like Director. The advantage is that i can reuse all my Java code.
  48. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    Well, I do not know enough about Adobe's technology at this point, but Silverlight has definitively a long and cumbersome road ahead of it self. The current 1.1 alpha is IMHO the absolute minimum client-side runtime and it is already at 4.5 MB download size. The technology is quite buggy (including very basic things such as MIME type recognition) and - at the end of the day - it is Windows and MacOS (bye, bye Linux) and still a fat virtual runtime (hello CLR, BCL, etc.). Again, I do not want to badmouth Silverlight: AFIAC it is an interesting application of .NET technology, and I think it is a good thing for .NET developers, that there is a first blink of cross-platformness. At the same time, I can absolutely not see that Silverlight is soooo far ahead of JavaFX.
  49. Re: Tough Audience![ Go to top ]

    I am sorry, installing Java is easy. It requires (on windows) one permission - Admin. And that is good, because it is very powerful and most users shouldn't be installing stuff willy nilly in a corporate environment. I like I said, I am using it(Web Start) , with no issues, with a large group of people that I have not seen in a year. I agree that applets are somewhat a pain. But Web Start is not.
    WebStart is not easy. I just measured what it takes to launch a very simple JWS App. *) 4 mouse clicks. *) 7 newly opened windows. *) several seconds, some spent on download time, some trying to figure out what each new window was about and what should I do next. Also take into account that I already had an installed Java SE. Instead the same app on flash would require nothing more than the wait for the download. See for your self: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450630/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450632/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450634/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450640/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450642/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/7178894@N04/493450648/
  50. Sun and client side[ Go to top ]

    I think they Sun burned their bridges on JDNC and WebStart. Lots of people are now doing Flex(easy to install) and SmartClient(ClickOnce - since CLR run time is built into Vista and easier to install on XP). The right thing would have been for Sun to make Java thiner (mark omg package for deprecation) and make the entire installation smaller and easier and also make sure that there is only one java installed and the rest are disabled. The # of pop ups to install java and your applet is huge - a good % of average joe user will not install your app because they feel java = complex. If they want to try something ( I won't buy anayway) it be for JavaFX to have it's own non java runtime installer. Show me the end user Java UI apps like LaszloMail or things linked on Flex blogs or the hello world sample from C# v3. The java webstat examples? This is not a practical tech, sorry, someone else should have a chance. .V http://www.theserverside.com/tt/articles/article.tss?l=RiA
  51. Don't invent another language[ Go to top ]

    problem is, they're trying to create a simplified scripting language for UI design, but as soon as people start needing more complex tasks in that language, it is going to be a pain. Ruby works great because it is simple AND powerful. Remember JSP EL script? Simplified, easy property access for javabeans, etc. etc... But it doesn't have the power of a full language. That's why Groovy or JRuby would be much better. Check out SwingBuilder and then then say you should have something that's not "too generic"... What a waste.
  52. Trim the fat[ Go to top ]

    I think we are all in agreement the the standard JRE is not up to the task of 'in-browser clients'. We need a Client Optimised JRE with resource usage on a par with Flash et al. How about a flash based installer for the COJRE :-)
  53. Re: Trim the fat[ Go to top ]

    I think we are all in agreement the the standard JRE is not up to the task of 'in-browser clients'.

    We need a Client Optimised JRE with resource usage on a par with Flash et al.

    How about a flash based installer for the COJRE :-)
    Java has supported the downloading of classes since ages. What happened to the modular JRE? Create a small-as-possible installer of a minimal core (language, AWT, network) and download the missing parts on the fly. (You need AWT to show some info when downloading, so it belongs in the core.)
  54. Sun has a lot to prove here given previous mis-steps with applets, etc. That said, they seem to have all the right pieces lined up to make this really quite good. * JavaFX Script is surprisingly cool, well thought out, and interoperable with the broader platform. * Sun's looking to create really good design and programming tools for JavaFX. * Sun plans to drop the download from ~11MB to 2-4MB for the JRE. * Sun's redoing the JRE installer to be simply, easy, pretty, etc. * Sun plans to pre-feed the disk cache to reduce Java startup time to something under 2 seconds. * Sun's focused on fixing Java Plug-In stability issues. Given say a 3MB download, easy install, 1-2 second startup, stable JPI, and a strong script language and tools, this could be really something -- it's all a matter of whether Sun can successfully execute on all of these fronts (and do so rather quickly).
  55. The second browser war[ Go to top ]

    Obviously the RIA plugin space will be heavily contested. And given the klunky user experience with the JVM in the browser and Webstart success for JavaFX is by no means certain. The scripting language is extremely interesting imo. Every RIA has it's own declarative language. I commend Sun for not going the Java++ route (that is something like Groovy) or going for some XML - Javascript solution. A new language designed on a relatively clean sheet is ballsy but might make for a winner. I haven't studied it yet since it's quite different from Java but I think it's promising. When I saw that Microsoft was experimenting with adding functional programming features to C# to enable parallel programming I felt disappointed that the Java Platform space was not as innovative. The JavaFX language seems innovative. Wether it will be successful remains to be seen.
  56. It seems like a lot of us are really focusing on the size of the java plugin. I agree that making this smaller is a good thing. That said, the download/installation of the JRE is a one time pain that many users never even experience (because Java is preinstalled on many new machines). I think it's far more important to make JavaFX startup time on par or faster than Flex/AJAX/etc. It may be that this startup time is related to the size of the JRE, but breaking up the JRE into modules could actually slow down the startup time for applications that use more than the most basic components. In reality, I seriously doubt that startup time will become what it needs to be without the MVM.
  57. I agree on that too. Let me repeat it, startup-time is much more important than download-time. One may have to download and install JVM once in a couple of years but start Java programs many times a day.
  58. From the examples on Sun's site it seemed like the FX-script or whatever they'll call it was semi-optional. Looked like you could build the swing objects in normal Java too. Anybody know if this is correct? One area I think that JavaFX may gain some traction is with internal corporate programming. They've been dying to get back to fat clients since VB6 went out of style (but with the benefits of low-overhead deployment like web apps). The buzz around Flex seems to show this is true. Where JavaFX would have the edge in this space: * Developers - the FX-script looks pretty trivial to learn for the average java developer. * Reuse - If JavaFX can use 100% real Java then I think it would be exciting if my front end could reuse the same domain objects/validations for UI Presentation. Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)? * Deployment - If Sun ties JavaFX to a regular JDK release then eventually it will sneak into even conservative Java shops. (note, I'm among the folks that thinks the JRE should be thinned out but having JavaFX come with the JDK would be fine with me) Anybody out there actually at Java One? What's the real scoop?
  59. George wrote: Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)? In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.
  60. Re: Java FX == Plain Old Java too?[ Go to top ]

    not to digress, but it would be great to have a clean, fast, 2 way JSON-->Java library out there that is customizable enough to not embed the class name. As a wire format JSON is fabulous. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen one around anywhere.
  61. Re: Java FX == Plain Old Java too?[ Go to top ]

    George wrote:

    Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)?

    In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.
    So is that a good thing or bad thing? :) I am doing Java serialization with Spring Remoting, Web Start and Swing. Pretty easy.
  62. I am doing Java serialization with Spring Remoting, Web Start and Swing. Pretty easy.
    I reccomend https://cajo.dev.java.net/ also, just cant get simpler and smaller than that.
  63. Re: Java FX == Plain Old Java too?[ Go to top ]

    George wrote:

    Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)?

    In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.

    So is that a good thing or bad thing? :)

    I am doing Java serialization with Spring Remoting, Web Start and Swing. Pretty easy.
    I'm saying good thing :-). One less layer where you don't have to transcribe your business objects is very nice. Never having to duplicate my business logic in JavaScript - priceless.
  64. George wrote:

    Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)?

    In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.
    Well for long term storage or long running sessions (weeks, months...) you have a point. But I'm talking about sharing the same version of a business object across a UI and back end. In the scenario I'm talking about the UI and business layer is delivered within the same component (WAR) much like an HTML UI and business logic is typically done in a web app. There would never be a mismatch between class versions since the JavaFX classloader would be streaming from the same version as the deployed application.
  65. George wrote:

    Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)?

    In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.
    Unless you happen to know about serialversionuid, readObject, and writeObject?
  66. George wrote:

    Could it be possible that I could send serialized java objects to my flash-like UI instead of having to marshall to XML (a la Flex)?

    In practice using Java serialization to pass around serialized objects is a big pain because you have to have a way to keep the versions of your objects on the various tiers in synch. If you add/remove/change a member in a class the deserializer blows up on you if you don't get the same version on all tiers.


    Unless you happen to know about serialversionuid, readObject, and writeObject?
    Right, thanks. Maybe folks are so entrenched now in XML that they've forgotten the power of built in serialization. If JavaFX is a move back toward applet-like development (albeit in a better environment) then, to quote Yoda, they may have to "unlearn what you know".
  67. ...everyone here has ranted about JavaFX in the browser. Which is fine because that's where everyone's head is at in the short term. Most even rant about Java missing the browser-boat because of the download size: these people missed that Sun is going to be partitioning the JVM so that it can be as easy to go as the Flash plugin, and allow it to build up over time on an as-needed basis (many people have been waiting for this for a long time to be sure) But the real reason why JavaFX and JavaFX-Script can be truly awesome: getting content creators to bridge the divide. People who make sexy web apps have no idea of the tech needed to do anything else. They can make Dhtml pages, Flash anims, sure... but they can't play outside that space. But if you allow a pixel pusher to play on their mobile phone with the very same tech that they use on the server... *that* is going to be the biggest boost for Sun. When Java phones came out, half of the guys in my team got all excited and started hacking midlets and stuff for their phone. There's a ton of java phone apps out there. But the pixel pushers are still in the dark. Now that putting stuff on the phone will be just as easy as making it for the web site... it really is going to be an interesting development. The same guy can make sexy content for all of the JavaFX environments. ...look outside the browser, there are more tipping points than just VM download sizes and abusing monopolies.
  68. Alright, everybody has made good points on what Sun needs to do to improve the JDK, webstart, etc to help make JavaFX be successful. The problem is that I'm not seeing any positive visionary thought towards what this could mean going forward. Web 2.0 is the big buzzword but I've never been able to get comfortable on the AJAX boat. While some results are nice (gmail), AJAX development feels so hacky (can you tell I'm not a huge JavaScript fan?). I want something easier and more powerful. For UI what more could you want than access to a blank canvas and a great library of tools to do anything you want on that canvas. Personally, I like Flash and Flex but am not an extreme fan of ActionScript or developing in XML. If JavaFX gets any traction, and really it is us who will either push it ahead or bury it, I think it would be a huge feather in the cap for Java development. I also think that having several vendors competing in this arena is only a good thing. I'm also glad that Sun isn't the first out of the gate so it can learn from Adobe/Macromedia and steal the good stuff. Adobe has a solid history and decent tools. It also has the respect of the graphic designers and is tightly integrated with other Adobe Tools. -- What this means in my mind is that Microsoft and Sun will never unseat Adobe in the Flash realm, but they should be attacking Flex/Apollo Microsoft has its captive user base and will probably sneak SilverLight on to desktops through a windows upgrade What does Sun have? * JVM/JDK - A solid, successful platform with a huge developer base * Tools: Java has the best IDEs on the planet. You can't tell me plugins for JavaFX couldn't be cranked out quickly * Server side: Web 2.0 is all about fat clients backed by the web. Java is still a leader on the server-side * Libraries - Java still has way more library support than ActionScript * Corporate Love - Java is already the staple of many (most?) corporate shops - getting JavaFX adopted would in many cases be easier than bringing in Flex * Openness - While Java isn't truly open source Sun does listen to industry. For every false move there has been many positive moves My wish list: 1) JavaFX comes bundled with the JDK so I don't have to jump through certain hoops 2) A killer app is delivered by someone to get the ball rolling 3) Webstart and a smaller JVM is released: This looks like it could come true in Java 7 4) Snazzy plug-ins for easy development Let's make Friday a fun day and keep things positive and forward looking...What do you want out of JavaFX, or Web 2.0 in general?
  69. totally agree. What do I want? It would be great if Sun and the community started to build up libraries and components, both UI as well as logic/comm so that we could have a thriving ecosystem of both open/commercial tools, something that Adobe and Microsoft both have to some degree. For example, from my estimation, Jide is the best overall Swing UI widget/toolkit out there, nothing even comes close. Need a great grid for Flex? good luck. Need a great Grid for WPF? there are dozens of companies out there. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, let's come up with ways to provide simple libraries and tools to bind our existing Java based server apps using POX/REST/JSON, and here is the most important point: TAKE THE BEST PARTS/REASONS/GESTURES/FEATURES of what works and doesn't work in Flex MXML and MS XAML and for once build on top of those ideas, its about time isn't it? Create a nice grid display, bind it to an AJAX like call, then easily hook the onclick handler for a button to refresh the data to a simple rebind() function. Add styling support for L&F through CSS or something better. Provide and support the community and commercial space into an ecosystem so that wiring a sexy looking mash up in JavaFX including full media and streaming support is as easy for a designer as it is for a developer and provide the tooling so that a one click menu option in the properties for the project can target multiple builds and deployments for mobile and desktop. Solve the deployment stuff, include the above, add some water, faith, and perserverance, and the blue oceans start to appear where there is only arid desert now.
  70. I don't want Sun to be distracted by creating bindings to "the flavor of the day" protocols. REST, JSon, whatever: get over it. Why did you choose those for your "existing backends"? Totally your responsibility, write those bindings yourself :) I'm very happy with basic Serialization, or JAXB with FastInfoset, and if not: Spring remoting to the rescue! I'd rather see more of Spring remoting implementations, but that is not Sun's business to provide.
  71. good ;-). I'm not talking about Sun providing bindings, I'm talking about Sun and the community around this to provide the hooks so anyone can write the bindings. I'm talking about the UI binding to a call to the server, whether its REST or Serialization. Those higher level building blocks need to be built.
  72. * Tools: Java has the best IDEs on the planet. You can't tell me plugins for JavaFX couldn't be cranked out quickly
    You mean like this - https://openjfx.dev.java.net/javafx-eclipse-plugin-install.html and this - https://openjfx.dev.java.net/javafx-nb55-plugin-install.html ? :)
  73. Chris Oliver (creator of JFX) has already told us that this is pre pre pre alpha, and that the syntax will be changing a lot before the final release. I attended his first presentation on JavaFX and spoke with one of his co-workers. She told me that the plan is to bundle it into Java 7 if it is done on time. I think it's great that there will be a Java standard alternative to Flex, Lazslo, SilverLight, etc... We should all show our support and enthusiasm to get this product out the door and into production. This isn't just for desktop and web browser; it can be used to create Apple iPhone style UI's easily for mobile devices. It can call into your existing Java classes and even display Swing components. At a general session we learned that there are 2-3 times more mobile device users (phones, pdas) than PC users worldwide. The majority are in developing countries. This is a HUGE market. At the JavaFX session someone asked if there will be a graphical design tool such as the one used to create Flash animations. Chris was very clear that he does not think graphical design tools can describe the kinds of things a scripting language lets you do. He said you can take Adobe Illustrator files, save them as SVG, then use a tool to generate a JavaFX script. The programmer would then do his/her thing. I and other JavaOne attendees think that having a GUI designer similar to Flash's designer is very important for the success of JavaFX. Let the graphics designer do their thing, then deliver it to a programmer to do the "logic" etc... Otherwise the graphics designer might design something in flash and deliver it to a programmer for conversion (by hand). I know for sure that our graphics designer will NOT learn JavaFX script. Graphics people expect tools. The graphical designer could be a NetBeans/Eclipse plugin, but should also be able to run independently on the graphics designer's workstation.
  74. Chris Oliver (creator of JFX) has already told us that this is pre pre pre alpha, and that the syntax will be changing a lot before the final release. I attended his first presentation on JavaFX and spoke with one of his co-workers. She told me that the plan is to bundle it into Java 7 if it is done on time. I think it's great that there will be a Java standard alternative to Flex, Lazslo, SilverLight, etc... We should all show our support and enthusiasm to get this product out the door and into production. This isn't just for desktop and web browser; it can be used to create Apple iPhone style UI's easily for mobile devices. It can call into your existing Java classes and even display Swing components. At a general session we learned that there are 2-3 times more mobile device users (phones, pdas) than PC users worldwide. The majority are in developing countries. This is a HUGE market.

    At the JavaFX session someone asked if there will be a graphical design tool such as the one used to create Flash animations. Chris was very clear that he does not think graphical design tools can describe the kinds of things a scripting language lets you do. He said you can take Adobe Illustrator files, save them as SVG, then use a tool to generate a JavaFX script. The programmer would then do his/her thing. I and other JavaOne attendees think that having a GUI designer similar to Flash's designer is very important for the success of JavaFX. Let the graphics designer do their thing, then deliver it to a programmer to do the "logic" etc... Otherwise the graphics designer might design something in flash and deliver it to a programmer for conversion (by hand). I know for sure that our graphics designer will NOT learn JavaFX script. Graphics people expect tools. The graphical designer could be a NetBeans/Eclipse plugin, but should also be able to run independently on the graphics designer's workstation.
    Flash 9 has a new feature that allows you to generate flex XML code directly from an animation. This is what you are describing, right? Let the designer create the animations. The developer generates the script from the animation and tweaks it or just uses it as a guideline for programming it. If JavaFX has any heat behind it some 3rd party company could probably develop a flash-like clone (or eclipse plugin) that would do pretty much the same. Or could some mad-scientist create a set of XML transformations from FlexML to the equivalent JavaFX script?
  75. Flash 9 has a new feature that allows you to generate flex XML code directly from an animation. This is what you are describing, right? Let the designer create the animations. The developer generates the script from the animation and tweaks it or just uses it as a guideline for programming it.

    If JavaFX has any heat behind it some 3rd party company could probably develop a flash-like clone (or eclipse plugin) that would do pretty much the same.

    Or could some mad-scientist create a set of XML transformations from FlexML to the equivalent JavaFX script?
    Yes exactly. JavaFX needs a program just like FlashMX for graphics designers to design screens, animations, screen flow, etc... This program should run on its own on the graphics designer's workstation, and as a NetBeans AND Eclipse plugin for the programmer to their thing. There should also be a bunch of pre-built widgets for them to work with (scroll bar, tabs, etc), and an online community to share new widgets. Look at Swing development before Matisse. A lot of people stayed away from Swing development (and even chose to use .NET instead) until there was great designer tool. Swing development is much harder than what JavaFX Script aims to be, but I think you can see my point.
  76. i wish there was flava, the looks of flex and the syntax of java, the runtime is mostly available so no problem there to me