Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Oracle Open Sourcing JavaFX, Including iOS and Android Ports

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the don't-tell-larry dept.

Java 105

hypnosec writes "Oracle is going to open source JavaFX ports for Android and iOS soon as a part of its efforts to open source the framework. JavaFX, destined to replace Swing GUI library as the default method to develop graphical user interfaces, is a framework used to develop cross-platform rich Internet applications. The ports for iOS and Android are based on an 'unreleased version of JavaSE Embedded for iOS/Android.' Oracle's Richard Bair revealed that the 'first bits and pieces' for JavaFX for iOS should probably be out sometime next week. The rest of the release will be scheduled along with the release of Prism (the next-generation toolkit). Oracle is going to keep javafx-font proprietary, but Bair has said developers are already working toward an open source native replacement of the component through the OpenJFX list."

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

and i care (1, Redundant)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885337)

why?

Re:and i care (2, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885411)

Um, maybe because now there's a open source alternative to Flash for interactive Web applications? Yeah, Javascript.

But why not have more options? Use as desired.

I'm as disappointed in the Java security situation as anybody else, but the Slashdot knee-jerk anti-Java reaction is kind of dumb.

Re:and i care (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885587)

Interesting -- so is there a compatible Open Source JVM that can run this?
I'm aware of Open JDK, but seeing that the code is targeted for Linux, I don't see that as a truly open solution for most users.

So how would this be more open that Flash? While the Flash Player (AVM) is closed source, the entire AS3 library is open source.
And seeing that the security situation has no fix in the foreseeable future -- why is this something that anyone should consider using?

Re:and i care (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886275)

So how would this be more open that Flash? While the Flash Player (AVM) is closed source, the entire AS3 library is open source.

I know that everyone's hatred of Flash often gets in the way of facts and reality, but everything regarding Flash -- the SWF format, the AVM2 bytecode, the communication protocols -- has been open-sourced [adobe.com] except for Adobe's Flash IDE.

Re:and i care (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888391)

I know that everyone's hatred of Flash often gets in the way of facts and reality, but everything regarding Flash -- the SWF format, the AVM2 bytecode, the communication protocols -- has been open-sourced except for Adobe's Flash IDE.

Why, then, hasn't there been a strong open-source alternative to Adobe's Flash Player? I know that there is a GNU project [gnu.org] already out there to run Flash, but by most accounts it sucks in terms of compatibility and performance. Is there some "secret sauce" that Adobe is holding back from the published documents? (I suspect any of Flash's DRM features must be undocumented, since the lack of public documentation is practically the definition of DRM.) Or are they of OOXML-style complexity so that it's virtually impossible for anyone without the resources of a major multinational corporation to implement? Or is it just laziness?

Re:and i care (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888981)

Because a good Flash player is something that it's not easy to do. Duh.

Re:and i care (3, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887083)

I'm aware of Open JDK, but seeing that the code is targeted for Linux, I don't see that as a truly open solution for most users.

Well, that's a shame, because if you don't use the same definition of the word "open" as the rest of us we can't actually answer your question. We have no way of saying "Well, there's FoozleJava 3.X", and you then responding, "No, I'm saying I want it to be truly open", and us saying "But there are ports to every platform in existance, and it's under the GPL", and you saying "Yes, but I'm using my definition of the word open, and that means it has to be compatible with the Microsoft Public License.

And after we go around in circles a few times, we throw our hands up in exasperation.

OpenJDK is free software. It's licensed under a free license. It is built using a community model of development, albeit one steered by Oracle. And to answer your concern, which seems to be more about portability than openness, it's largely POSIX code and has been ported to the BSDs (cite: https://wikis.oracle.com/display/OpenJDK/BSDPort [oracle.com] )

Re:and i care (3, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885785)

Let's just focus on Javascript, and leave this other crap outside (flash, activex, java). We don't need it. I try and use a page wihch requires Java on Linux and I get warnings about how IcedTea isn't working. I click on the link to update it, but I get taken to a Wiki page...like I'm going to spend my evening searching for a solution. (It `just works` under Windows). I used to spend a lot of time playing with Linux, but I can't be bothered any more.

Re:and i care (3, Insightful)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886043)

Computing is more than just the Web. Javascript is ok for web stuff. Crap for rich clients with functionality that doesn't work well over the network, usually because the datasets are too big (eg. CAD, GIS, graphics/photography, simulations). There is still an ernomous space for rich client technologies like JavaFX, and JavaFX 2 looks really nice and has some great built in styles and effects. It's also pretty easy to program if you are used to Swing.

not knee-jerk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886355)

Um, maybe because now there's a open source alternative to Flash for interactive Web applications? Yeah, Javascript.

But why not have more options? Use as desired.

I'm as disappointed in the Java security situation as anybody else, but the Slashdot knee-jerk anti-Java reaction is kind of dumb.

It's not knee-jerk. It's a carefully considered judgement that the potential benefits are not worth the demonstrated risks.

Java in the browser had its chance. It blew it, mostly because early implementations took ages to start up. People went elsewhere. That's how promising standards die. Security problems over the last few years have nailed that coffin shut.

The masses have chosen. Yeah, they chose a lousy one, but it's over now.

Re:and i care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885447)

And we care what you care about ... why? Maybe you are some nihlist who doesn't care about anything. Why should you be used as a test of what does and doesn't get posted?

"Why do I care" first posts are rediculous. All we need to do is important a bunch of right wing religious nut bags, and they can start asking "why do I care" to every article about space, evolution, dinosaurs, science coputers and so on. Only Jesus articles will be allowed! That's all you should care about!

Re:and i care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885519)

why?

To keep Slashdot in business by giving the ol' "zomg i haet teh javaz lol" echo chamber a good workout every couple weeks or so?

Apple says wait a minute... (1, Insightful)

Glasswire (302197) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885433)

... you can't open source any system level components in an iPhone or iPad without talking to us first!

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885515)

Doesn't matter. You can't run Java on iOS can you? Hence, JavaFX won't run on an iPhone or iPad.

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (3, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887763)

Doesn't matter. You can't run Java on iOS can you? Hence, JavaFX won't run on an iPhone or iPad.

And flash neither?

You stupid fucks. It'll work so that you bundle the jvm into your app - and this is totally acceptable for apple as long as you don't allow loading of new portions to it from the outside.

on another note - a lot of sensible desktop java programs do this as well.

(this doesn't mean that anyone should give a fuck about JavaFX).

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42889739)

The simple fact that apple can decide what runs and what doesn't and by doing so affect the market means they really need to be looked at for antitrust. remember the laws do NOT say you need a monopoly, only that you have "undue influence' and the fact that Apple can kill Flash with a word, get companies like Opera to drop their engines, even as we saw affect the price of media on the web, shows that they have too damned much power.

I was all for busting up MSFT in the 90s, I'd be for busting up the hardware and software divisions of Apple now as NO company should have the power to change what runs on the web simply by saying "you can't have that on an iPhone".

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887941)

As I read it, Oracle will provide a runtime environment that runs on iOs, hence you can run Java FX on iOs.

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885537)

JavaFX is coded in Java. Perhaps someone should clue Oracle into the fact that iOS doesn't do Java.

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885947)

Maybe you should wait and see what the release looks like.

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886951)

gee... I wonder how well Java code runs... if Java isn't installed...

Re:Apple says wait a minute... (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888999)

Just fine, because there are static Java compilers (Excelsior Jet, for example). Mono does this with .NET as well.

Define 'soon' (3, Interesting)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885451)

It is still early for April fools. This is Oracle which has had a series of sad missteps regarding open source. Since it's Oracle, I have to wonder "what's the catch".

That said, if this really happens, then I suppose we will see Java FX really unencumbered and able to appear in Iced Tea and any other open source efforts?

Would using Java FX on Android have any advantages over using the native Android user interface features? (I don't know about iOS, so I won't ask, but someone familiar with iOS could ask and answer that one.) One could say that an advantage of Java FX on Android is that it makes more code you wrote for the desktop / browser / iOS / etc more directly reusable on Android. But like Swing before it, does it also result in a 'least common denominator' user interface across platforms that doesn't perfectly match the conventions of any single platform?

Re:Define 'soon' (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885745)

> Since it's Oracle, I have to wonder "what's the catch".

They're trying to trick you into using Java, when everyone is dropping it as fast as they can!

Re:Define 'everyone' (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885799)

Not everyone is dropping Java. Java is heavily used in enterprise systems. The JVM (virtual machine) is one of the most amazingly well engineered machines ever created.

I don't know where you just don't like the word Java, or whether you don't like the language, or whether you don't like Applets in the browser, or what. But the Java ecosystem is way larger than you imagine.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885965)

Java's technical merits are moot.

Oracle's has tarnish Java's good name.
Between the cross-platform exploits, Oracle's lack of eagerness to plug them until recently, and their attempts to monetize anything Open-Source from Sun that had no-strings-attached, people are running away from Java.

E.g. People don't want to touch LibreOffice because it has ONE dependency on Java in its BASE application.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886285)

E.g. People don't want to touch LibreOffice because it has ONE dependency on Java in its BASE application.

Since LibreOffice just hit version 4.0 and the improvements keep coming in, I don't think you are correct. You may have meant OpenOffice. OpenOffice suffered more from Oracle's heavy handiness than any technical issues with Java.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42887039)

As he said "The JVM (virtual machine) is one of the most amazingly well engineered machines ever created. " Sorry if you don't understand but it is probably one of the most researched and well understood machines on earth after x86. The jvm has so much amazing analysis performed on it that you don't really have to worry about whether your dog shit business case will work on it or not because financial firms trade on it, super clusters use it, and so to blurays and cell phones.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42887871)

I can run snappy, ergonomic, efficient software on x86 that does not crash the OS. See Linux.

Properly crafted data run through a PDF parser can completely destroy the JVM. I guess it could own the JVM, if some more effort were spent. So, you are obviously clueless.

The JVM is a shoddy piece of work from an academic and the results are clunky, sub-ergonomic and insecure.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885999)

I don't know where you just don't like the word Java, or whether you don't like the language, or whether you don't like Applets in the browser, or what. But the Java ecosystem is way larger than you imagine.

He could be in high school, a "fresh out", or a geek trying to get "street cred" by mindlessly bashing Java. This is slashdot.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42889999)

But there is a fault in everyone's logic when it comes to java. from what I have seen the statement is basically "Well big business and financial corps use it so it must be good". This of course ignores the fact that many of those same corps have IE Intranet apps, VB apps and Excel apps and even Access apps and just because some big corps use something doesn't magically make it "good" or right or wrong or anything other than software that big corps use.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42895425)

> But there is a fault in everyone's logic when it comes to java. from what I have seen the
> statement is basically "Well big business and financial corps use it so it must be good".
> This of course ignores the fact that many of those same corps have IE Intranet apps,
> VB apps and Excel apps and even Access apps

Those big corps are abandoning their IE only apps. Big corps don't have Excel and Access apps that do anything on any large scale. Small processes, yes, maybe -- just like a small business may have such processes built on Excel / Access / VB. Not that there's nothing wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say. But those big corps are not abandoning Java.

People who bash Java for no rational reason, don't realize that there are a lot of reasons to use it. It has a lot of advantages that outweigh its disadvantages. This is probably true of almost any technology. Windows. Linux. Mac. Python. Even Perl for God's sake. Otherwise people wouldn't be using it.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886007)

"Amazingly well engineered" for moderate values of "amazingly"- if it was as awesome as you're making it out to be, it'd be used EVERYWHERE. It's only used in SOME enterprise contexts (I can assure you Java would fall flat on it's face (in fact it and the companies that bet on it did...) if you tried to handle securities trading volumes from just one exchange, say, NASDAQ. The whole concept of a VM is useful for quite a few tasks- but is still a bad, bad idea for deterministic requirements.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886091)

I guess you never heard of real-time Java. It's a commercial product sold by Oracle.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886339)

You should have mentioned Azul Zing.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886627)

Consistent response time != Deterministic response time.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886987)

First of all, you don't have a deterministic response time on a PC-architecture machine anyway (paging, caches, SMM etc.). Second, I can hardly see a difference between the two, unless you're doing hard RT.

Not True (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888543)

There is a big difference in the ergonomics of a properly coded C++ application and it's Java equivalent. Of course it does not make that comparison when a machine does massive swapping. Java apps freeze all the time at random intervals while C++ apps are snappy and responsive all the time, if memory has not run out.

All of that is called "soft realtime" and you get it with C++ or Delphi. You don't get it with Java.

Re:Define 'everyone' (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886677)

I can assure you Java would fall flat on it's face (in fact it and the companies that bet on it did...) if you tried to handle securities trading volumes

Or if you tried to run really massive-scale web sites on it, like, say, Google. Oops... much of Google is built with Java, including plenty of performance-critical code.

Java works just fine at really large scale, and at extremely high transaction volumes. It tends to require more RAM than a comparable system built with C or C++, but performance is close to identical assuming good engineering of both -- and it generally requires less effort in Java than in C or C++, even when you include the tuning efforts required to get maximum efficiency out of Java.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887989)

This shows only you have no clue at all ...
Should I reall list the majour trading Systems that are written in Java? Or are you confident, you can google them your own?

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42889679)

The world's biggest international FX trading system is built in Java - thousands of orders per second. I helped build it. Hasn't fallen on its face yet - well, ok once, when they let the logs fill up :-)

Determinism is manageable. You control your memory usage profile, and across many independent components, you can keep it very tight. It's not as hard as people think... and vastly less hassle than DIY'ing your own memory mgmt as per C++.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

lennier (44736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890467)

(I can assure you Java would fall flat on it's face (in fact it and the companies that bet on it did...) if you tried to handle securities trading volumes from just one exchange, say, NASDAQ.

Given that high-speed securities trading is about the #1 threat to life, freedom and security on the planet... is crashing the exchanges actually a bug?

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42895461)

> if [Java] was as awesome as you're making it out to be, it'd be used EVERYWHERE.

No. You're wrong.

Technology ${X} would only be used EVERYWHERE if it were PERFECT. I'm not claiming Java is perfect. I'm merely claiming that it is very good. It has a lot of advantages that outweigh its disadvantages, as do many other technologies.

Technology ${X} has a lot of advantages that outweigh its disadvantages. That is why people use ${X}. Where X could be Java, Windows, Linux, Mac, Python, C, cassette audio tapes, pocket calculators, etc.

But if Java were perfect, it would be used everywhere. It's not. But if you mindlessly bash Java, then you should also consider bashing every other technology that I mentioned. All of them have serious drawbacks.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886129)

It is used heavily in the enterprise, and many enterprises are now learning that is not such a good thing. Enterprise apps are often pinned to particular versions of Java. This has left many enterprises unable to update the versions of java on their desktop, which leaves them open to trivial drive-by attacks. This is causing real operational cost as companies have to rebuild machine after machine as they get compromised. At some point the pain will cross the point of costing more than replacing the Java app with a pure HTML app, and they'll dump Java. The writing's on the wall.

Allowing multiple versions of Java to exist on the system at once was a tragically bad idea, and it's biting the entire ecosystem in the ass right now.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886567)

It is used heavily in the enterprise, and many enterprises are now learning that is not such a good thing. Enterprise apps are often pinned to particular versions of Java. This has left many enterprises unable to update the versions of java on their desktop,

Enterprises aren't generally running Java on the desktop. *sigh*

I swear Slashdot is full of people who think they know computing because they have a computer, but have no idea how it is used in practice.

Re:Define 'everyone' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886729)

Yes they are. I can say this from direct experience, because this is exactly the situation my company's in. We've got over 40,000 users, and our desktop support team is in absolute hell rebuilding systems that are getting constantly compromised.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886317)

The JVM (virtual machine) is one of the most amazingly well engineered machines ever created.

And, like many of its kind, it's the right solution to the wrong problem.

NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42887815)

I have run the distributed YaCY search engine, a very interesting concept. It is coded in Java and runs a Java-coded PDF parser.

Unfortunately. after a few hours of indexing it normally crashes the JVM (!) while parsing some "exotic" PDF. I am not sure why this is, but that completely invalidates your claim of "one of the most amazingly well engineered machines".

I would call it a typical commercialware crapball: Long on features, short on security/correctness. Why did they add so much stuff to the JVM and the libraries ? Yeah, because "features sell".

The JVM found a proper home with Oracle, next to the RDBMS you could crash by evil hacker tools like telnet and some random typing.

Re:NOT (2)

jonabbey (2498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887879)

I've gone 15 years developing on the JVM and never seen it crash. What JVM were you using? Were you using JNI and native libraries alongside it?

Re:NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888101)

I do know the difference between a Java stack trace and a VM which crashes with a dump of the CPU registers. Platform was Ubuntu 10 LTS and the Oracle JVM.

I also checked the PDF parser. I does not use any native stuff.

Re:NOT (1)

jonabbey (2498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42889333)

I do know the difference between a Java stack trace and a VM which crashes with a dump of the CPU registers. Platform was Ubuntu 10 LTS and the Oracle JVM.

I also checked the PDF parser. I does not use any native stuff.

Well, I took you at your word about crashing the VM. I was just curious how long ago it was, whose VM you were using, etc.

Re:NOT (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888017)

It is very unlikely that the JVM crashed. Very more likely is: it threw an Error or at least an Exception. Perhaps you should care to read and comprehend it.

Re:NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888165)

Repost:
I do know the difference between a Java stack trace and a VM which crashes with a dump of the CPU registers. Platform was Ubuntu 10 LTS and the Oracle JVM.

I also checked the PDF parser. It does not use any native stuff.

Re:Define 'everyone' (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888431)

Not everyone is dropping Java. Java is heavily used in enterprise systems. The JVM (virtual machine) is one of the most amazingly well engineered machines ever created. I don't know where you just don't like the word Java, or whether you don't like the language, or whether you don't like Applets in the browser, or what. But the Java ecosystem is way larger than you imagine.

Yes, Java has its uses. But it's gotten a bad name because Sun/Oracle touted it as a web application platform but never bothered to provide the necessary security for executing untrusted code over the Internet. Worse, until very recently, there was no way to install just the Java runtime for desktop apps without also getting the browser plugin shoved down your throat – and if you removed it, it would be put back at the next security update. The fact that Oracle sees these security updates as a way to make a few bucks by foisting Ask Toolbar on users doesn't help, either. And the numerous patent lawsuits filed by Oracle are yet another strike against Java.

Re:Define 'soon' (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887913)

No one is dropping Java.
What would be the alternative? Frankly: there is none. The Java world and the .Net world are pretty seperated entities.

Re:Define 'soon' (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888253)

There are plenty of alternatives if your top priority is not "cheap and plenty developers". Perl, Python, Smalltalk, C++. Yeah, C++ ! A couple of highly skilled C++ developers will create the same functionality at the same total cost (development, testting, maintenance, cost of operations) as the Java folks will deliver.

The only "problem" in the corporate world is that they want "affordable" developers and compromise on everything else. So they save some money on the short run and then pay big dollars/euros on hardware and maintenance afterwards.

I assume the average PHB can't accept that a proper software engineer has the same or higher hourly rate as the PHB himself.

Re:Define 'soon' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886071)

Definitely April fools - who's going to trust Oracle not to retroactively change the copyright terms and start sueing them? You go first.

Re:Define 'soon' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888913)

This is Oracle ffs not Sun we are talking about. I would not get too dependent on this. Defending JVM. And btw, I know everyone on here, is a genius, so saying that someone does not understand an argument is a bit disingenuous.
I do not let Oracle around my kids for a good reason.

What about JMF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885475)

I wish they would release JMF (Java Media Framework) for Java so we can start writing applications for web cams. I guess we'll have to stick with Flash.

Re:What about JMF? (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885859)

Nooooooo! Don't ask for JMF over Flash for webcams.

Since you mention Flash as an alternative, I assume you are talking about this for use in the web browser. Wasn't there just very recently a web standard to use the web cam and set up video conversations between web browsers?

What you really need to explore is how to use that new web standard to secretly turn on the user's web cam, streaming video back to your server, while the browser plays streamed music with a mesmerizing visual display so the user will leave the browser window open for days on end.

ah the memories.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885501)

line after line of this garbage:

try {
        UIManager.setLookAndFeel(UIManager.getSystemLookAndFeelClassName());
} catch (Exception e) {}

Is Ellison smart enough to consent to this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885561)

To quote Admiral Ackbar, "It's a trap!"

Android used the Java API framework on the basis that Sun provided it as being "open" and then later also provided it as open source. This resulted in a situation leading up to a Slashdot article titled "Ellison Doesn't Know If Java Is Free."[1]

It seem nice that Oracle is "offering" to further extend it contributions to open source. But the problem is that an offer is only genuine if the person making the offer is capable of something known as "informed consent." I think it has been demonstrated that Larry Ellison is too mentally handy capped to actually consent to the so-called offer of JavaFX and as such it will be retracted at any time.

Anyone else find it ironic that Oracle takes the stance that Android's distribution is illegal but then still produces a port of JavaFX which is only useful if you happen to have access to a copy of Android?

The only way I can make sense out of the actions of Larry Ellison is if I take it as a given that he exists in multiple parallel realities at the same time and just can't keep them straight anymore. Hence, he is acting on the basis that in one reality the Java API was never provided as an open framework and in another reality Android is legal so it only makes sense to release applications for it.

But of course the idea someone is acting irrationally due to an existence in multiple universes at the same time is just crazy. Right?

[1] http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/04/18/0044257/ellison-doesnt-know-if-java-is-free

JavaFX replaces Swing? (3, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885625)

Huh, who knew. Last I checked, JavaFX was built on top of Swing. Apparently that may have changed with 2.0.

Or maybe not. I can't tell.

But one thing seems pretty clear from screenshots: your JavaFX applications will fit in with the native desktop just about as well as your Swing applications did. Which is to say, "not at all."

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885899)

So basically you know very little about the current state of Java but that's not enough to keep you from trolling.

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886095)

No, I know next to nothing about the state of JavaFX. If you want me to talk to you about server-side features of Java, including some new Java 7 features I'm still not using because I have to stick with Java 6 for the foreseeable future due to IT overzealousness, that I can talk about.

If Oracle was serious about pushing JavaFX as a replacement for Swing, they've sure done a shit job of it. It was an optional install up until what, JDK 7u6 or so?

Of course, the last time I did a GUI in Java, I didn't use JavaFX or Swing or event the AWT: I used SWT. Because it uses native widgets and it manages to be slightly less horrible than Swing. Still horrible, mind you, but at least not completely terrible.

Most of my current Java work deals with servlets, though, so I'm not exactly up to date on Java GUI technologies. Especially ones that were originally sold as a way to revive applets.

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888145)

Some people don't like the look of Swing., put if you are programming it your own, I don't get why. As you simply can set it as you want.
Other people don't like the way how you program SWT.
I would never program in a glorified MFC (SWT is no GUI framework, it is a bad hacked library) to get a minimal different look and feel.

In our days you look on a beamer image projected to the wall and guess which framework was used to program it.

Sorry, neither SWT nor Eclipse RCP looks in any way more native than Swing. You immediatly see if something is SWT or RCP ... for a skilled eye they are not native at all.

Also: SWT is only portable in a limited sense and to make your application portable you have to bundle it with the SWT libraries for every platform you like to support. That means a bundle for every platform. With Swing you only have one bundle, idealy only one jar file ...

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (1)

jonabbey (2498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887949)

Huh, who knew. Last I checked, JavaFX was built on top of Swing. Apparently that may have changed with 2.0.

Or maybe not. I can't tell.

But one thing seems pretty clear from screenshots: your JavaFX applications will fit in with the native desktop just about as well as your Swing applications did. Which is to say, "not at all."

JavaFX is its own thing, but they've made it possible to include JavaFX panels in Swing apps.

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888053)

Swing Applications fit perfectly well into your native environmnet. If you have a particular application that does not, then the programmer likely hard coded a specific look and feel (like "plastic") . However this can be changed by command line options or system variables.

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (1)

Livius (318358) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888093)

I also thought "JavaFX replaces Swing" didn't sound right either.

I figured JavaFX didn't really have a purpose....

Re:JavaFX replaces Swing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42889219)

Yeah it is different, it is based on a rendering pipeline called prism. It use it's own thread for event and if you integrate it into swing, you have to switch thread to invoke methods on JavaFX object and vis versa. I was actually waiting for it to be opensourced and for me to be able to compile before making it my employer official platform for internal fat client applications.

This is for when Android gets banned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885717)

...and his Holyness Ellison will bring all the joys of Java (and Ask.com) to the mobile experience! Read all about it on Groklaw [groklaw.net] !

"GUI File" is the Future (3, Interesting)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885727)

I've always thought that having GUI files is the way to go instead of in code. I'm fine with XML (FXML in this case), but I'm sure some others have gripes and may prefer property files/etc. But how nice would it be to have an XML standard for all GUIs? Then all you have to do is load one XML file across GTK+, Qt, X11, Windows, Cocoa, and even OpenGL. Example:

<window width="300" height="300">
<edit width="100" height="20" value="Type name." />
<button width="50" height="50" value="Submit" />
</window>

Then do the logic in whatever language you want. I know it's a pipe dream with several problems, but damn it would be nice.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885837)

But how nice would it be to have an XML standard for all GUIs?

You mean like XHTML + CSS?

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885841)

maybe this idea could also work for website development? that would be really really nice.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (3, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885993)

"GUI File" is fine right up until your application gets more complex than a simple login page.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886887)

Apple's Cocoa uses "GUI File" ( .xib ) for more than just "login pages".

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887237)

"GUI File" is fine right up until your application gets more complex than a simple login page.

This is why the web has failed for any application that requires anything more complex than a simple login page.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888237)

The web pages youo mean don't use "GUI files" but java script to create and render arbritary widgets.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888395)

No, the web fails at this because it was never designed for app development. It's just a random assortment of tags that Tim Berners Lee thought might be handy for something somehow. It succeeded because it was open. It's still a horrible mess.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887647)

This is why you would allow XML and allow code implementations/manipulation. For most work, just do it in XML. If something is more advanced, then do it in code, or do it in XML and manipulate it in code.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42887947)

Yeah because having your layout and implementation strewn across different files and formats is FUN! Of course, that's how android gui's work.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

Keyboarder (965386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892305)

Which is why I really like Android's approach of having your GUI declared in xml, but then inflated into Java objects. The xml becomes a declarative shorthand and anything that can be done in xml can also be done in Java (although xml is usually much quicker to write).

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886203)

I've always thought that having GUI files is the way to go instead of in code. I'm fine with XML (FXML in this case), but I'm sure some others have gripes and may prefer property files/etc. But how nice would it be to have an XML standard for all GUIs? Then all you have to do is load one XML file across GTK+, Qt, X11, Windows, Cocoa, and even OpenGL. Example:

<window width="300" height="300">

<edit width="100" height="20" value="Type name." />

<button width="50" height="50" value="Submit" />

</window>

Then do the logic in whatever language you want. I know it's a pipe dream with several problems, but damn it would be nice.

http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul [mozilla.org]

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42886325)

Sure it's a very nice concept you have there, but if the big companies making web browsers couldn't just conform with a simple standard as HTML for rendering documents, how could the same big companies will conform/comply to a standard that touch such a sensitive aspect as their application's look and feel?

The problem are not standards, the problem are the companies trying to differentiate themselves from each other so they can say "hey, we have a product that's better than the rest" and then make the user captive into their platform. It's all about marketing.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (2)

Bogtha (906264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886515)

But how nice would it be to have an XML standard for all GUIs?

Not very. Firefox does this with XUL. Different platforms have different conventions, you don't want the same interface across all of them. For instance, Android apps typically have menus that pop up from the bottom, whereas this isn't the norm on iOS. Sure, you'd have the same interface from the programmer's perspective, but from the user's perspective, your app works differently to all their other apps.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887747)

That's why you would need it to be robust and flexible. More of like a general model with easily switchable skins/properties. Again, it's just a pipe dream. Personally, I'm kind of sick of writing lines and lines of code for a view. I hate GUI tools that make GUIs, but I also hate millions of lines of code for simple views that have very little correlation between what the user sees and what the coder sees. I think GUI files are the middle ground, and you can have designers on your team easily change/understand it -- at least more easily than code. Have the design team do these files and have coders to do the logic.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892421)

For instance, Android apps typically have menus that pop up from the bottom, whereas this isn't the norm on iOS.

Pick a hard one next time: the developer creates menus. On Windows etc the menus are normal, with submenus. On Android the top five menu items (first five) are listed with a more button as the sixth, and any press on a menu opens a submenu window.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (2)

White Flame (1074973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887219)

Any standard that demands such specific width & height values be manually entered and numerically described is pointless. UI specs need to deal with general layout role indications, not try to lock into pixel-perfect "dumb" layouts that cannot manage being rendered with different fonts, resolutions, or aspect ratios.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887629)

Good point. It was just an example though. It could be changed to use "center" and "em" values.

Re:"GUI File" is the Future (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887809)

Good point. It was just an example though. It could be changed to use "center" and "em" values.

that doesn't really solve different form factor machines running it.

j2me forms api solves all this,
but everything looks like shit.

WPF (2)

kervin (64171) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887721)

Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xaml and it's use in WPF.

The real prize is the ARM JVM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885907)

What will be interesting is what happens with the ARM Java Virtual Machine and Runtime Environment.
None of the free JVMs are anywhere near as fast as Sun's. If they release the ARM JVM code to OpenJDK
that's a huge win for embedded development. You can jet the JRE for ARM now, but the licenceing is unclear.
If it were clearly free, commercial embedded developers would be all over it. ARMs are plenty fast.
Similarly for the PPC JVM.

Re:The real prize is the ARM JVM (1)

jonwil (467024) | about a year and a half ago | (#42888967)

Wont happen because the ARM space is where Oracle makes all its JVM money these days (licensing J2ME and the ARM Java stuff). Also there would be licensing issues involved in sharing the details of the proprietary ARM Jazzelle Java instruction system.

Define "Open Source" (0)

walterbyrd (182728) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885945)

Oracle seems very active in suing anybody who uses Oracle open source.

> Oracle Files Appeal Brief in Oracle v. Google ~pj

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130213000119924

Re:Define "Open Source" (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886701)

Technically Google has stated that their work was not derived from OpenJDK and included libraries from Apache Harmony. So your comment doesn't apply.

Re:Define "Open Source" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42887735)

They open source it, but if you are going to put out a device using java, you better pay them their pound of flesh. on PC, you never have to worry about this as the license is free for anything not mobile. Google didn't use the JVM and didn't call their VM system Java, so they were in the legal clear. Can't patent a language. Larry Ellison didn't understand this and tried to go thermonuclear on google, and it didn't work.

There has never been a problem with people writing apps in java for the Oracle JVM, and the JVM itself is open source with OpenJDK7.

TL:DR Apps are fine, don't fuck with java and devices unless it uses the regular JVM, unless you want to pay oracle or can find a way to get around the limitations.

There seems to be an enormous amount of FUD circling around this whole debacle. I see lots of people suggesting C# and Mono, and others saying to do direct development ala Apple. Methinks less conspiracy and more cheerleading from the .Net and ObjectiveC crowds. Java is a direct threat to their models.

Muharr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42888397)

Java is a threat to nobody and all you read are the responses of proper engineers who have drunken some of the Java KoolAid and are now pissed because of their wasted time to learn Java and all around it.

When apps look crappy, freeze at random and use ten times more memory than the competing C++ app, they are not a threat at all. First-rate software must be coded in C++, C, Objective C or something equivalent (e.g. Delphi). Full Stop.

Re:Muharr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42889323)

the javakoolaid pays for my house and car and required scotch (it help with koolaid). I would not have enough money for all the required scotch if I had to work in C++ event if you gave me ten times what I currently do.

That'd make up a BIT for the Lawsuit BS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42885951)

But if and only if they honestly do it, don't play games that allow them to pull the stunt they tried with Google, and do it soon.

JavaFX 2 nice evolution for Swing (3, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42886103)

JavaFX 2 is a nice evolution for those used to Swing (yes, yes, many don't like Swing, but you simply can't beat Swing for power and flexibility once you get some experience in it). It has a much nicer default styling than even Nimbus for Swing, and great built in aesthetic effects (hence the "FX") that mostly get switched on with a simple boolean property. JavaFX makes the same mistake as Swing in that there are no standard Calendar/Date controls, yet just about every application needs these. Fortunately you can use one of the third party controls, or even embed your existing Swing applications into your JavaFX app. That's pretty funky stuff.

Re:JavaFX 2 nice evolution for Swing (1)

jonabbey (2498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42887621)

Swing is definitely functional, and Nimbus doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out, but it's legacy as a cancerous outgrowth of AWT hurts it too much. It's amazing what they were able to do with that kind of foundation, but it's past time for something better.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>