JavaFX 1.3

Any support or demos for JavaFX 1.3 planned for the near future?

I'm interested in integrating GLJPanel with JFX 1.3 as an applet.

On Tuesday, June 01, 2010 19:36:48 bvj [via jogamp] wrote:
>
> Any support or demos for JavaFX 1.3 planned for the near future?
>
> I'm interested in integrating GLJPanel with JFX 1.3 as an applet.

Personally I have no interest, Michael may has some.

Technical this is interesting, especially from the
JOGL component[s] point of view.

'Some' JavaFX version use[d] a 'some' JOGL version for their
underlying 3D and hw accelerated rendering.

Since ~ NOV 2009 JOGL's open source licensed version (BSD style)
is continued by us, now under jogamp.org.

Since around NOV 2009, Oracle stopped contributing to
JOGL's open development process, released no new version,
nor are any commitments visible on their kenai.com abandoned home.

So talking about 'JavaFX' and 'JOGL',
we cannot talk about _the_ JavaFX or _the_ JOGL.

Assuming JavaFX would use JOGL, you could conveniently access JOGL, indeed.

Now it could be eg a JOGL 1.1 or JOGL 2.0, where we have our pre-releases
and are about to release our 1st one. We haven't actually determined the version number yet.
But while I write this, it might be necessary to distinguish the versions and
to emphasize the enhancements. Let's just assume we name our version 3.0 for now.

So, you would have eg [JavaFX 1.3 + JOGL 2.0] + JOGL 3.0,
which for sure would cause some conflicts due to similar package names etc.

Then you would also have [JavaFX x.y + SomeRenderEngine ] + JOGL 3.0,
if SomeRenderEngine doesn't use the JOGL namespace good.
But it must not use GL to render, which would bring you back to some sort of
manual compositioning if you like to mix a 'panels' content (-> Swing).

In regards to UI's I will start a new thread here 'Re: JOGL & UI Toolkit[s]',
so I will not hijack your thread.

~Sven

Sven Gothel wrote

Let's just assume we name our version 3.0 for now.

So, you would have eg [JavaFX 1.3 + JOGL 2.0] + JOGL 3.0,

since there is no public JavaFX-JOGL (which JavaFX might use or not) i would recommend to keep calling JogAmp's JOGL "JOGL 2", which is the same plain old JOGL as known as RE of JSR231... just evolved.

...and Oracle's JOGL... is Oracle's JOGL... maybe JGL for correctness or so :)

... simpler this way, business as usual we don't have to distinguish since there is only one open JOGL right now. (at least the only one i am aware of of course)

regards,

Michael

On Tuesday, June 01, 2010 21:02:52 Michael Bien [via jogamp] wrote:
>
> Sven Gothel wrote:
> >
> > Let's just assume we name our version 3.0 for now.
> >
> since there is no public JavaFX-JOGL (which JavaFX might use or not) i would
</snip>

Let me emphasize the 'for now' ending of my sentence.
Yes, sounds ambiguous .. so let me rephrase it 'for here only' :)

Didn't want to kick off another 'name the thing' discussion :)

Discouraging news.

So, who's the "rightful" owner of the javax.media.opengl namespace?

Is Oracle unwilling to collaborate, or is that premature to suggest?

On Tuesday, June 01, 2010 21:43:24 bvj [via jogamp] wrote:
>
> Discouraging news.
>
> So, who's the "rightful" owner of the javax.media.opengl namespace?
There is no 'owner' to this 'string' :)

>
> Is Oracle unwilling to collaborate, or is that premature to suggest?

Well, at least you can say, Sun was unwilling to continue
JOGL's open source development - that's why we have jogamp.org now.

So I would say 'on the contrary', this proves open source works
and good news: JOGL ain't dead.

~Sven

I should have clarified; discouraging from the JavaFx point of view.

Regarding jogamp, the direction is "open" and forward looking.

Thanks for your comments. I expect many others will appreciate the important information you and Michael provided on the subject of JavaFx