gl4java or jogl?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Bura Tino, Jul 1, 2003.

  1. Bura Tino

    Bura Tino Guest

    Hi,

    I've been looking at gl4java and jogl and I'm at a loss as to which
    one to choose.

    gl4java seems to be more mature and under more active development
    (correct me if I'm wrong).

    jogl seems to be slimmer and is more appropriate for applets (correct
    me if I'm wrong).

    Any thoughts?

    Bura
    Bura Tino, Jul 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hello!

    Well, basically they're the same AFAIK, or to be more precise: the
    newer Jogl bases on the older Gl4java (brought to us by Sven Göthel
    and others). One day Jogl will be _the_ OpenGL for Java. There's a
    connection between SUN and Jogl (did they start it? Do they maintain
    it? Dunno. Anyway Sven did a nice "OpenGL for Java" presentation
    together with a SUN man on a JavaOne mass last year or so).
    However it's unclear yet if SUN is going to include Jogl in a future
    Java. I really hope they do so, because otherwise it'll be difficult
    to deploy Java applications which use OpenGL in a solid, proper and
    straightforward way.

    Currently you can just download the source code for Jogl, whilst for
    Gl4java you can point anybody to the binary Gl4java bindings for Linux
    (several processors), Win32 and AFAIK MacOS. So my current choice is
    Gl4java, because everybody can install the few files pretty easy into
    their already installed JRE.

    From a programmer's point of view the difference between the two
    bindings still is minimal. So if you issue your OpenGL calles via
    Gl4java you can take your code and convert it to Jogl one day with
    minimal changes.

    AFAIK to all of the above. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    -ric


    (Bura Tino) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I've been looking at gl4java and jogl and I'm at a loss as to which
    > one to choose.
    >
    > gl4java seems to be more mature and under more active development
    > (correct me if I'm wrong).
    >
    > jogl seems to be slimmer and is more appropriate for applets (correct
    > me if I'm wrong).
    >
    > Any thoughts?
    >
    > Bura
    Richard Ivarson, Jul 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Richard Ivarson wrote:

    > Hello!
    >
    > Well, basically they're the same AFAIK, or to be more precise: the
    > newer Jogl bases on the older Gl4java (brought to us by Sven Göthel
    > and others).


    Not entirely, it was a clean room implementation by some Sun engineers,
    one of whom, Kenneth Russell, has been involved with gl4java for some
    time. Its probably more correct to say that Jogl was 'informed' by
    gl4java and other similar projects.


    > One day Jogl will be _the_ OpenGL for Java. There's a
    > connection between SUN and Jogl (did they start it? Do they maintain
    > it?


    Yes to the former question (as mentioned above). It is maintained in
    part by Sun engineers but the idea is for it to open up and be properly
    open-source (via the BSD licence)

    > Dunno. Anyway Sven did a nice "OpenGL for Java" presentation
    > together with a SUN man on a JavaOne mass last year or so).
    > However it's unclear yet if SUN is going to include Jogl in a future
    > Java. I really hope they do so, because otherwise it'll be difficult
    > to deploy Java applications which use OpenGL in a solid, proper and
    > straightforward way.


    Not really, if you use webstart you can distribute the required jars and
    libs. Otherwise, an installer will do the truck.

    > Currently you can just download the source code for Jogl, whilst for
    > Gl4java you can point anybody to the binary Gl4java bindings for Linux
    > (several processors), Win32 and AFAIK MacOS. So my current choice is
    > Gl4java, because everybody can install the few files pretty easy into
    > their already installed JRE.


    Prebuilt binaries will be there soon. Be patient, Jogl has only been
    public for a few weeks!

    > From a programmer's point of view the difference between the two
    > bindings still is minimal. So if you issue your OpenGL calles via
    > Gl4java you can take your code and convert it to Jogl one day with
    > minimal changes.


    Code using gl4java and jogl look similar, but Jogl is simpler, better
    designed and more stable. Plus it is being actively develped whereas
    gl4java is not. There *was* an effort to work on gl4java to move it
    forward, but the people doing that have pretty much moved to Jogl
    instead (being closer to being an 'official' openGl binding for java is
    possibly the main reason why - they'd also solved some of the bugs that
    people wanted to fix on gl4java).

    My opinion is that people should use Jogl since gl4java is effectively dead.

    Peter.
    Peter Ashford, Jul 1, 2003
    #3
  4. Bura Tino

    Xela Guest

    Your position about Jogl vs Gl4java is clear. What do you think
    about Java3D ans Jogl. Is Java3D nearly dead?

    "Peter Ashford" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:paoMa.62102$...
    > Richard Ivarson wrote:
    >
    > > Hello!
    > >
    > > Well, basically they're the same AFAIK, or to be more precise: the
    > > newer Jogl bases on the older Gl4java (brought to us by Sven Göthel
    > > and others).

    >
    > Not entirely, it was a clean room implementation by some Sun engineers,
    > one of whom, Kenneth Russell, has been involved with gl4java for some
    > time. Its probably more correct to say that Jogl was 'informed' by
    > gl4java and other similar projects.
    >
    >
    > > One day Jogl will be _the_ OpenGL for Java. There's a
    > > connection between SUN and Jogl (did they start it? Do they maintain
    > > it?

    >
    > Yes to the former question (as mentioned above). It is maintained in
    > part by Sun engineers but the idea is for it to open up and be properly
    > open-source (via the BSD licence)
    >
    > > Dunno. Anyway Sven did a nice "OpenGL for Java" presentation
    > > together with a SUN man on a JavaOne mass last year or so).
    > > However it's unclear yet if SUN is going to include Jogl in a future
    > > Java. I really hope they do so, because otherwise it'll be difficult
    > > to deploy Java applications which use OpenGL in a solid, proper and
    > > straightforward way.

    >
    > Not really, if you use webstart you can distribute the required jars and
    > libs. Otherwise, an installer will do the truck.
    >
    > > Currently you can just download the source code for Jogl, whilst for
    > > Gl4java you can point anybody to the binary Gl4java bindings for Linux
    > > (several processors), Win32 and AFAIK MacOS. So my current choice is
    > > Gl4java, because everybody can install the few files pretty easy into
    > > their already installed JRE.

    >
    > Prebuilt binaries will be there soon. Be patient, Jogl has only been
    > public for a few weeks!
    >
    > > From a programmer's point of view the difference between the two
    > > bindings still is minimal. So if you issue your OpenGL calles via
    > > Gl4java you can take your code and convert it to Jogl one day with
    > > minimal changes.

    >
    > Code using gl4java and jogl look similar, but Jogl is simpler, better
    > designed and more stable. Plus it is being actively develped whereas
    > gl4java is not. There *was* an effort to work on gl4java to move it
    > forward, but the people doing that have pretty much moved to Jogl
    > instead (being closer to being an 'official' openGl binding for java is
    > possibly the main reason why - they'd also solved some of the bugs that
    > people wanted to fix on gl4java).
    >
    > My opinion is that people should use Jogl since gl4java is effectively

    dead.
    >
    > Peter.
    >
    Xela, Jul 2, 2003
    #4
  5. Xela wrote:

    > Your position about Jogl vs Gl4java is clear. What do you think
    > about Java3D ans Jogl. Is Java3D nearly dead?


    I can't really comment from a personal perspective since I have not used
    Java3D. I saw some performance benchmarks of gl4java vs Java3D and it
    scared me away for good ;-)

    I have read comments from Sun people to the effect that internally
    Java3D isn't dead yet.

    If you want to read about this check the forum topic:
    "Directions, LWJGL, JOGL, Signal and Noise"
    in the forum:
    "Java.Net - Games General Discussions "

    at

    http://games.dev.java.net/forums/

    Here are some snippets from Jeff from Sun:


    "FWIW it probably helps us if you keep up the noise about Java3D
    support, too. I personally agree with those who say the industry wants
    higher level solutions. I remember when I strated this every developer
    I talked to said "screw that scene graph stuff, just give us OGL
    bindings." Its ironic that support for J3D has come into question just
    when its approach is finally becoming an accepted way of doing things in
    the industry. But if you can communciate that fact to Sun management as
    effectively as you have the need for OGL bindings then there is a lot
    that could be done to address it"

    " Well, all I can tell you is that JOGL, and the success of JOGL,
    actually strengthen the case for J3D in Sun.

    To explain why would take me into Sun internal politics I can't discuss
    but I'm gonna ask you to trust me here that for J3D users this is, in
    the long run, actually a good development. "

    Take from that what you will.

    Peter.
    Peter Ashford, Jul 2, 2003
    #5
  6. Peter, many thanks for your information and corrections. Good to know
    all this about Jogl.

    > [..] Its probably more correct to say that Jogl was 'informed' by
    > gl4java and other similar projects.


    I see.

    [..]
    > Not really, if you use webstart you can distribute the required jars and
    > libs. Otherwise, an installer will do the truck.


    I don't like Webstart and I intend to deploy without Internet
    connection. :) However when Jogl JARs and BINs will be there and its
    installation to the JRE simple, it won't be a problem.

    > [Jogl] Prebuilt binaries will be there soon. Be patient, Jogl has only been
    > public for a few weeks!


    Ok, of course we'll be patient then.

    > > From a programmer's point of view the difference between the two
    > > bindings still is minimal. So if you issue your OpenGL calles via
    > > Gl4java you can take your code and convert it to Jogl one day with
    > > minimal changes.

    >
    > Code using gl4java and jogl look similar,


    This is what I've meant.

    > but Jogl is simpler, better designed and more stable.


    Great to know.

    > [Jogl] (being closer to being an 'official' openGl binding for java is
    > possibly the main reason why


    Yes, that's an important point. Also for developers "just" using
    OpenGL for Java: one can't start a Java project which bases on OpenGL
    when it's unclear if the OpenGL binding for Java will still be there
    in a year or so.

    > My opinion is that people should use Jogl since gl4java is effectively dead.


    Ok, this convinces me too.

    -ric
    Richard Ivarson, Jul 2, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <bdt4gc$pf2$>,
    "Xela" <> wrote:

    > Your position about Jogl vs Gl4java is clear. What do you think
    > about Java3D ans Jogl. Is Java3D nearly dead?


    I am a Mac programmer, which is a platform that does not have a Java3D
    implementation. I would have considered Apples' "Use jogl" position
    self serving had I not had a friend go to JavaOne this year. Java3D is
    dead, as best as he can tell, and jogl is central to the recently
    announced Java Gaming Initiative.

    So, Sun wants Jogl to succeed, and Apple already has working bindings
    for it. Damn cool.

    Scott
    Scott Ellsworth, Jul 2, 2003
    #7
  8. Bura Tino wrote:

    > Hi Peter,
    >
    > So I've gathered that jogl is the the answer. I just looked at
    > http://jogl.dev.java.net/ and I'm a little confused... Would I need to
    > compile the project myself or are there binaries available? Sorry if I
    > missed them.
    >
    > Bura


    Making prebuilt binaries is still on the 'todo' list, as far as I can see.

    I've built jogl myself and it wasn't too difficult - but you need to
    download Antlr, and have VC++ installed.
    Peter Ashford, Jul 2, 2003
    #8
  9. Bura Tino

    Bura Tino Guest

    Peter Ashford <> wrote in message news:<_fJMa.63843$>...
    > Bura Tino wrote:
    >
    > > Hi Peter,
    > >
    > > So I've gathered that jogl is the the answer. I just looked at
    > > http://jogl.dev.java.net/ and I'm a little confused... Would I need to
    > > compile the project myself or are there binaries available? Sorry if I
    > > missed them.
    > >
    > > Bura

    >
    > Making prebuilt binaries is still on the 'todo' list, as far as I can see.
    >
    > I've built jogl myself and it wasn't too difficult - but you need to
    > download Antlr, and have VC++ installed.


    I'm sorry to press on this point a little bit, but does everybody who
    uses jogl have to do this? I've heard of many people using jogl and
    it's hard for me to believe that everybody has compiled their code. In
    any case, I don't have VC++ and to tell you the truth, I've never done
    C++ in Windows.

    Does that change your recommendation? Should I use gl4java until there
    are prebuilt binaries? Or is there an older version of jogl that does
    have prebuilt binaries (and installation instructions!)?
    Bura Tino, Jul 3, 2003
    #9
  10. Bura Tino wrote:

    > Peter Ashford <> wrote in message news:<_fJMa.63843$>...
    >
    >>Bura Tino wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hi Peter,
    >>>
    >>>So I've gathered that jogl is the the answer. I just looked at
    >>>http://jogl.dev.java.net/ and I'm a little confused... Would I need to
    >>>compile the project myself or are there binaries available? Sorry if I
    >>>missed them.
    >>>
    >>>Bura

    >>
    >>Making prebuilt binaries is still on the 'todo' list, as far as I can see.
    >>
    >>I've built jogl myself and it wasn't too difficult - but you need to
    >>download Antlr, and have VC++ installed.

    >
    >
    > I'm sorry to press on this point a little bit, but does everybody who
    > uses jogl have to do this? I've heard of many people using jogl and
    > it's hard for me to believe that everybody has compiled their code.


    Well, believe it - it's true.

    I have raised the issue of pre built binaries as a bug and mentioned it
    on the jogl forums. I would expect it will be fixed within a few days.

    >In
    > any case, I don't have VC++ and to tell you the truth, I've never done
    > C++ in Windows.
    >
    > Does that change your recommendation? Should I use gl4java until there
    > are prebuilt binaries? Or is there an older version of jogl that does
    > have prebuilt binaries (and installation instructions!)?


    Well, I wouldn't commit myself to a long term project on the basis of
    not being able to solve a short term problem. YMMV.

    Unfortunately there are not older versions of Jogl available - as I
    mentioned before, it has only just become avaiable at all.

    Cheers,

    Peter.
    Peter Ashford, Jul 3, 2003
    #10
  11. Bura Tino

    JK Guest

    The lack of a Mac port has always been a drag with Java3D. Also, the
    Linux port had quite some flaws, which resulted in "Java for Windows
    only" attitude of many Java3D developpers and implementors. Into the
    bargain, AFAIK Sun never released the source code, making ports even
    more difficult.

    Nevertheless, I like the high-level API, and it makes me frightened to
    programm in OpenGL in the future. (In fact, I only had a short look at
    OpenGL, but it looked so damn low-level and C-like that I simply let it go).

    Most Java3D implementations are based on OpenGL and my impression is
    that even the Windows users prefer the OpenGL version to the DirectX one.

    So why not build a (portable) Java3D or a similar high-level interface
    on top of Jogl? Are there any plans to do so?

    Regards
    JK.



    Scott Ellsworth wrote:
    > In article <bdt4gc$pf2$>,
    > "Xela" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Your position about Jogl vs Gl4java is clear. What do you think
    >>about Java3D ans Jogl. Is Java3D nearly dead?

    >
    >
    > I am a Mac programmer, which is a platform that does not have a Java3D
    > implementation. I would have considered Apples' "Use jogl" position
    > self serving had I not had a friend go to JavaOne this year. Java3D is
    > dead, as best as he can tell, and jogl is central to the recently
    > announced Java Gaming Initiative.
    >
    > So, Sun wants Jogl to succeed, and Apple already has working bindings
    > for it. Damn cool.
    >
    > Scott
    JK, Jul 3, 2003
    #11
  12. JK wrote:

    > The lack of a Mac port has always been a drag with Java3D. Also, the
    > Linux port had quite some flaws, which resulted in "Java for Windows
    > only" attitude of many Java3D developpers and implementors. Into the
    > bargain, AFAIK Sun never released the source code, making ports even
    > more difficult.
    >
    > Nevertheless, I like the high-level API, and it makes me frightened to
    > programm in OpenGL in the future. (In fact, I only had a short look at
    > OpenGL, but it looked so damn low-level and C-like that I simply let it
    > go).
    >
    > Most Java3D implementations are based on OpenGL and my impression is
    > that even the Windows users prefer the OpenGL version to the DirectX one.
    >
    > So why not build a (portable) Java3D or a similar high-level interface
    > on top of Jogl? Are there any plans to do so?
    >
    > Regards
    > JK.
    >


    It seems to me like an obvious thing to do, but I don't know of any
    plans to do so as of yet.

    A current option for people wanting a scenegraph on top of Jogl is
    OpenMind at http://www.mind2machine.com/gb/openmind/index.php. Note
    that OpenMind is open source and currently needs a few more features,
    though is reasonably impressive as it is (it's quite swift). OM's focus
    is squarely on games programming.

    Hope that helps :)

    Peter.
    Peter Ashford, Jul 3, 2003
    #12
  13. Bura Tino

    Bura Tino Guest

    Peter Ashford <> wrote in message news:<3ZOMa.64318$>...
    > Bura Tino wrote:
    >
    > > Peter Ashford <> wrote in message news:<_fJMa.63843$>...
    > >
    > >>Bura Tino wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Hi Peter,
    > >>>
    > >>>So I've gathered that jogl is the the answer. I just looked at
    > >>>http://jogl.dev.java.net/ and I'm a little confused... Would I need to
    > >>>compile the project myself or are there binaries available? Sorry if I
    > >>>missed them.
    > >>>
    > >>>Bura
    > >>
    > >>Making prebuilt binaries is still on the 'todo' list, as far as I can see.
    > >>
    > >>I've built jogl myself and it wasn't too difficult - but you need to
    > >>download Antlr, and have VC++ installed.

    > >
    > >
    > > I'm sorry to press on this point a little bit, but does everybody who
    > > uses jogl have to do this? I've heard of many people using jogl and
    > > it's hard for me to believe that everybody has compiled their code.

    >
    > Well, believe it - it's true.
    >

    Amazing! :)

    > I have raised the issue of pre built binaries as a bug and mentioned it
    > on the jogl forums. I would expect it will be fixed within a few days.
    >


    Thanks, I'll be checking in.
    > >In
    > > any case, I don't have VC++ and to tell you the truth, I've never done
    > > C++ in Windows.
    > >
    > > Does that change your recommendation? Should I use gl4java until there
    > > are prebuilt binaries? Or is there an older version of jogl that does
    > > have prebuilt binaries (and installation instructions!)?

    >
    > Well, I wouldn't commit myself to a long term project on the basis of
    > not being able to solve a short term problem. YMMV.
    >
    > Unfortunately there are not older versions of Jogl available - as I
    > mentioned before, it has only just become avaiable at all.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Peter.
    Bura Tino, Jul 4, 2003
    #13
  14. >>I have raised the issue of pre built binaries as a bug and mentioned it
    >>on the jogl forums. I would expect it will be fixed within a few days.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Thanks, I'll be checking in.
    >


    They are available now:

    http://jogl.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList
    Peter Ashford, Jul 4, 2003
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Olaf Kliche

    [JOGL] - small webstar test

    Olaf Kliche, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    588
    Olaf Kliche
    Apr 13, 2004
  2. Reza Roby

    JOGL too slow

    Reza Roby, May 7, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,393
    Roedy Green
    May 9, 2004
  3. Reza Roby

    JOGL too slow

    Reza Roby, May 7, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    490
    Vincent Cantin
    Jun 24, 2004
  4. Andrew Thompson

    JWS/JOGL test..

    Andrew Thompson, Oct 14, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,079
    Andrew Thompson
    Oct 15, 2005
  5. altrsv

    gl4java

    altrsv, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    379
    Andrew Thompson
    Mar 31, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page