JavaFX: dead on start?

[soup_or_power]

Hi

I was reading the slide presentation of Java FX at this URL

http://www.javapassion.com/javafx/javafx_overview.pdf

Towards the end the slide says this about deployment:

• JavaFX 1.0 applications can be deployed using the two
standard Java deployment technologies

Java Plugin: A tool used for deploying Java applets that run inside a web browser
Java Web Start: A tool used for deploying stand-alone Java

applications on the desktop, using JNLP (Java Network Launching
Protocol).
• Or using mobile emulation

JavaFX 1.0 Mobile Emulator Beta Release: A tool provided with

the JavaFX 1.0 SDK, which displays your applications as they
would look on a typical mobile device.

Is anyone using applets these days? And the Java Web Start is
practically moot.
Why would anyone run a thick app on the desktop?

Thanks

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Is anyone using applets these days?

Not many.

Why would anyone run a thick app on the desktop?

Better functionality and better look and feel.

RIA is reasonably hot today: Adobe Flex, JavaFX,
MS Silverlight and super-heavy AJAX.

Arne

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

[ SNIP ]
Why would anyone run a thick app on the desktop?

Thanks
****************************************
Take a look at a typical web page these days...those _are_ thick
applications. Even leaving aside Java FX, Silverlight, Flex etc, just with
JavaScript and CSS (and yes, the CSS is being used in such a way that it
contributes to the logic) web pages can contain a lot of the code and be
quite heavyweight.

Why would people design their apps that way? Well, if the data in question
is not rapidly changing, and all (or most) of the user interactions can be
handled by the client, why not have the client do the computing? Most
people's computers are sadly underutilized by almost everything they
do...servers OTOH can be struggling.

AHS

 

[Qu0ll]

[...]

Is anyone using applets these days?

Yes, plenty of people, me included. The advances in Java 6 Update 10 (the
so-called "consumer" release of the JRE) including much faster startup times
and better browser integration have made applets a very rich and viable
platform. They did this primarily to support the then soon-to-be-released
JavaFX which is also rich and viable. Long live applets!

And the Java Web Start is practically moot.

What makes you say this? Java Web Start is an awesome technology that
allows you to launch desktop applications right from within your browser.
It is widely used and exceedingly useful.

Why would anyone run a thick app on the desktop?

Where else would you run it? Let's face it, many desktops are more powerful
than some servers so why wouldn't you want to take advantage of all that
processing power? Who can be satisfied with boring, dull server-based web
technologies? We all want rich apps these days.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[blue indigo]

Flex and JavaFX look interesting.

Seconded.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Yes, plenty of people, me included.

If you look at web sites around, then applets are
not that common.

It is widely used and exceedingly useful.

It may be very useful. But since Java client apps are
not that popular (compared to alternative client technologies
or server side Java), then also that usage is somewhat
limited.

If I were to guess then I would say that about 0.5% of
Java developers work with Java applets and/or Java Web Start.
But if we assume 2 million Java developers then that is still
10000 Java developers.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Flex and JavaFX look interesting. Flex, in particular, allows me to build
apps with Flash or HTML/AJAX and doesn't require me to learn a whole new
language. (JavaFX looks very different from Java)

If you happen to already know AS then that argument is valid.

One advantage with JavaFX is that even though it is a
different language, then you can use existing
Java libs from it.

Arne

 

[Roedy Green]

Is anyone using applets these days? And the Java Web Start is
practically moot.
Why would anyone run a thick app on the desktop?

I run Applets. MS has tried to kill them, but there are so many
browsers it cannot succeed now.

JWS is a wonderful technology. The browser is optional. It handles
updates. It does one click installs. It lets you include native code
and have the correct platform automatically included.

What baffles me is why grown people are jerking around with toy
languages like Ajax and JavaScript.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
http://mindprod.com

"Here is a point of no return after which warming becomes unstoppable
and we are probably going to sail right through it.
It is the point at which anthropogenic (human-caused) warming triggers
huge releases of carbon dioxide from warming oceans, or similar releases
of both carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, or both.
Most climate scientists think that point lies not far beyond 2°C (4°F) C hotter."
~ Gwynne Dyer

 

[neuneudr]

Flex and JavaFX look interesting. Flex, in particular, allows me to build
apps with Flash or HTML/AJAX and doesn't require me to learn a whole new
language. (JavaFX looks very different from Java)

I agree, but Flash and/or AJAX may be quite alien to some Java
programmers.

I think we could mention that Google's GWT allows to build
AJAX app using only Java, which may interest some
comp.lang.java.programmers

Some of the biggest webapp are powered by GWT, like GMail and
its 50 million+ subscribers and Google Documents.

So GWT is pretty much a tested and proven technology (and
it's all free and open source).

Integration of GWT with IntelliJ IDEA 8 is very nice too
(and with Eclipse probably too).

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

I run Applets. MS has tried to kill them, but there are so many browsers
it cannot succeed now.

JWS is a wonderful technology. The browser is optional. It handles
updates. It does one click installs. It lets you include native code and
have the correct platform automatically included.

What baffles me is why grown people are jerking around with toy
languages like Ajax and JavaScript.

Ah, Roedy, you know better...AJAX isn't a language. Making use of the
XmlHttpRequest object is what it boils down to; don't even have to use
JavaScript or XML.

As for JavaScript being a toy language, why do you think that?

AHS

 

[Wojtek]

Arved Sandstrom wrote :

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:34:16 -0800, Roedy Green wrote:

Making use of the
XmlHttpRequest object is what it boils down to; don't even have to use
JavaScript or XML.

Well, you kind of need Javascript to use XMLHttpRequest. Not much, but
it does need to be there.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Arved Sandstrom wrote :

Well, you kind of need Javascript to use XMLHttpRequest. Not much, but
it does need to be there.

In practices: yes.

In theory you could use IE and client side VBScript.

Arne