Swing is dead! Long live Swing.

Discussion in 'Java' started by Knute Johnson, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    javafx.com website.

    "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java SE?
    Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE specification for
    the foreseeable future, and is included in the JRE. On one hand, Swing
    is widely used in existing Java desktop applications, but relies on an
    old architecture, which requires a certain level of expertise and
    specialization. On the other hand, JavaFX features a set of modern UI
    controls that can be skinned using standard CSS techniques. While we
    recommend developers to leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when
    building new applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX within
    the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    applications."

    I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it
    is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I usually
    do for work with it though.

    Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.

    knute...
    Knute Johnson, Feb 16, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Knute Johnson

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
    someone who said :

    >I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    >really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it
    >is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I usually
    >do for work with it though.


    I have been hoping for a new way of doing GUIs that was more like CSS,
    where you don't specify all the details for every component
    explicitly. Back in the DOS days, in my Abundance language I did not
    have to explicitly label fields or lay them out. Such things should
    be possible in Java. The sort of thing I would like is an
    international mailing address type, that you treat like an atom. When
    you give it more space on screen fields grow. When you give it less,
    labels disappear, fields shrink and fields temporarily hide. It knows
    about postal codes, formatting, provinces etc. and ensures the user
    keys a valid address, perhaps with automatic postal code lookup
    without writing code other than to enable the feature.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    http://mindprod.com
    One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is
    "If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".
    Roedy Green, Feb 16, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Knute Johnson

    Novice Guest

    Knute Johnson <> wrote in news:jhhsv4$uov$1
    @dont-email.me:

    > I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    > javafx.com website.
    >
    > "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java SE?
    > Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE specification for
    > the foreseeable future, and is included in the JRE. On one hand, Swing
    > is widely used in existing Java desktop applications, but relies on an
    > old architecture, which requires a certain level of expertise and
    > specialization. On the other hand, JavaFX features a set of modern UI
    > controls that can be skinned using standard CSS techniques. While we
    > recommend developers to leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when
    > building new applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX

    within
    > the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    > applications."
    >
    > I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    > really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it
    > is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I

    usually
    > do for work with it though.
    >
    > Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.
    >


    My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent messing
    around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great expertise.
    However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows XP/Vista/7 at
    the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not that mature yet
    and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I submit that JavaFX
    may not be worthy of a great deal of development effort yet, at least for
    those who want to develop things that are going to run on multiple
    platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.

    It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
    investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
    later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear that
    it will be made available for all the platforms on which we expect to run
    our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating that Mac and Linux
    versions WILL be available at the same or similar level to the Windows
    versions by some not-too-distant date is probably all I need to get more
    enthusiastic about JavaFX....

    --
    Novice
    Novice, Feb 16, 2012
    #3
  4. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/15/2012 10:25 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    > I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    > javafx.com website.
    >
    > "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java SE?
    > Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE specification for
    > the foreseeable future, and is included in the JRE. On one hand, Swing
    > is widely used in existing Java desktop applications, but relies on an
    > old architecture, which requires a certain level of expertise and
    > specialization. On the other hand, JavaFX features a set of modern UI
    > controls that can be skinned using standard CSS techniques. While we
    > recommend developers to leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when
    > building new applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX within
    > the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    > applications."
    >
    > I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    > really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it is
    > going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I usually do
    > for work with it though.
    >
    > Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.


    Maybe.

    If there are enough applet and desktop app developers
    to make it relevant.

    Otherwise here would be preferable.

    Arne

    PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #4
  5. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, Novice wrote:
    > Knute Johnson<> wrote in news:jhhsv4$uov$1
    > @dont-email.me:
    >> I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    >> javafx.com website.
    >>
    >> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java SE?
    >> Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE specification for
    >> the foreseeable future, and is included in the JRE. On one hand, Swing
    >> is widely used in existing Java desktop applications, but relies on an
    >> old architecture, which requires a certain level of expertise and
    >> specialization. On the other hand, JavaFX features a set of modern UI
    >> controls that can be skinned using standard CSS techniques. While we
    >> recommend developers to leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when
    >> building new applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX

    > within
    >> the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    >> applications."
    >>
    >> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    >> really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it
    >> is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I

    > usually
    >> do for work with it though.
    >>
    >> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.

    >
    > My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent messing
    > around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great expertise.
    > However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows XP/Vista/7 at
    > the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not that mature yet
    > and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I submit that JavaFX
    > may not be worthy of a great deal of development effort yet, at least for
    > those who want to develop things that are going to run on multiple
    > platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.
    >
    > It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
    > investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
    > later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear that
    > it will be made available for all the platforms on which we expect to run
    > our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating that Mac and Linux
    > versions WILL be available at the same or similar level to the Windows
    > versions by some not-too-distant date is probably all I need to get more
    > enthusiastic about JavaFX....


    Did you read the text you commented on?

    "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java SE?
    Yes."

    It says that JavaFX will become part of Java SE.

    Then it will be on all platforms with (that version
    or higher of) Java SE.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #5
  6. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/15/2012 11:13 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
    > <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
    > someone who said :
    >
    >> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go to
    >> really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know what it
    >> is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces that I usually
    >> do for work with it though.

    >
    > I have been hoping for a new way of doing GUIs that was more like CSS,
    > where you don't specify all the details for every component
    > explicitly.


    That is one of the features JavaFX offers.

    And Knute did even mention it (you just did not quote that part).

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #6
  7. On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >
    > PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.


    I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.

    --

    Knute Johnson
    Knute Johnson, Feb 16, 2012
    #7
  8. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    > On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.

    >
    > I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    > thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.


    Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 16, 2012
    #8
  9. On 2/16/2012 3:52 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    >> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.

    >>
    >> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.

    >
    > Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
    >
    > Arne
    >
    >


    I'm going to need another book :).

    --

    Knute Johnson
    Knute Johnson, Feb 17, 2012
    #9
  10. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/16/2012 7:01 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    > On 2/16/2012 3:52 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
    >>>
    >>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.

    >>
    >> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

    >
    > I'm going to need another book :).


    javafx.* classes are fine, but that is just another GUI
    API. It is when you start using fxml and css files that
    it really becomes different.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 17, 2012
    #10
  11. Knute Johnson

    markspace Guest

    On 2/15/2012 7:25 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:

    > Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.



    Or a comp.lang.java.gui, as the swing news group is low traffic enough
    to bear additional traffic for jfx.
    markspace, Feb 17, 2012
    #11
  12. Knute Johnson

    Novice Guest

    Arne Vajhøj <> wrote in
    news:4f3d91f3$0$291$:

    > On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, Novice wrote:
    >> Knute Johnson<> wrote in
    >> news:jhhsv4$uov$1 @dont-email.me:
    >>> I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    >>> javafx.com website.
    >>>
    >>> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
    >>> SE? Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE
    >>> specification for the foreseeable future, and is included in the
    >>> JRE. On one hand, Swing is widely used in existing Java desktop
    >>> applications, but relies on an old architecture, which requires a
    >>> certain level of expertise and specialization. On the other hand,
    >>> JavaFX features a set of modern UI controls that can be skinned
    >>> using standard CSS techniques. While we recommend developers to
    >>> leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when building new
    >>> applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX

    >> within
    >>> the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    >>> applications."
    >>>
    >>> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go
    >>> to really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know
    >>> what it is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces
    >>> that I

    >> usually
    >>> do for work with it though.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.

    >>
    >> My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent
    >> messing around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great
    >> expertise. However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows
    >> XP/Vista/7 at the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not
    >> that mature yet and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I
    >> submit that JavaFX may not be worthy of a great deal of development
    >> effort yet, at least for those who want to develop things that are
    >> going to run on multiple platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.
    >>
    >> It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
    >> investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
    >> later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear
    >> that it will be made available for all the platforms on which we
    >> expect to run our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating
    >> that Mac and Linux versions WILL be available at the same or similar
    >> level to the Windows versions by some not-too-distant date is
    >> probably all I need to get more enthusiastic about JavaFX....

    >
    > Did you read the text you commented on?
    >
    > "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
    > SE? Yes."
    >
    > It says that JavaFX will become part of Java SE.
    >
    > Then it will be on all platforms with (that version
    > or higher of) Java SE.
    >

    That will be fine when it is true but my point was that it this hasn't
    happened yet and Oracle hasn't committed to a specific date when it will
    happen.

    I'm just a little leery about vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time
    something like this was promised and then failed to happen for one reason
    or another.

    It might be a little premature to embrace JavaFX given that Oracle's
    intentions may not materialize.

    --
    Novice
    Novice, Feb 17, 2012
    #12
  13. Knute Johnson

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
    someone who said :

    >javafx.com website.

    you have to install the 32- and 64-bit versions of JavaFX separately
    on the customer machine. The JDK installs it (always on the C: drive),
    but not the JRE.

    I found it very flaky running the demo apps, though the apps, when
    they worked, were fairly impressive visually.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    http://mindprod.com
    One of the most useful comments you can put in a program is
    "If you change this, remember to change ?XXX? too".
    Roedy Green, Feb 17, 2012
    #13
  14. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/17/2012 12:24 PM, Roedy Green wrote:
    > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:25:19 -0800, Knute Johnson
    > <> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
    > someone who said :
    >
    >> javafx.com website.

    > you have to install the 32- and 64-bit versions of JavaFX separately
    > on the customer machine. The JDK installs it (always on the C: drive),
    > but not the JRE.
    >
    > I found it very flaky running the demo apps, though the apps, when
    > they worked, were fairly impressive visually.


    The multimedia stuff may be a bit flaky as they must be
    dependent on external software to work.

    But normal GUI stuff seems rock solid to me.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 17, 2012
    #14
  15. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/17/2012 11:35 AM, Novice wrote:
    > Arne Vajhøj<> wrote in
    > news:4f3d91f3$0$291$:
    >
    >> On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, Novice wrote:
    >>> Knute Johnson<> wrote in
    >>> news:jhhsv4$uov$1 @dont-email.me:
    >>>> I was doing some investigation of JavaFX and found a Q&A on the
    >>>> javafx.com website.
    >>>>
    >>>> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
    >>>> SE? Yes. However, Swing will remain part of the Java SE
    >>>> specification for the foreseeable future, and is included in the
    >>>> JRE. On one hand, Swing is widely used in existing Java desktop
    >>>> applications, but relies on an old architecture, which requires a
    >>>> certain level of expertise and specialization. On the other hand,
    >>>> JavaFX features a set of modern UI controls that can be skinned
    >>>> using standard CSS techniques. While we recommend developers to
    >>>> leverage JavaFX APIs as much as possible when building new
    >>>> applications, it is possible to use Swing and JavaFX
    >>> within
    >>>> the same application, allowing developers to extend existing Swing
    >>>> applications."
    >>>>
    >>>> I've just started playing with JavaFX and I've got a long way to go
    >>>> to really understand it but it looks fairly simple. I don't know
    >>>> what it is going to be like to produce the type of GUI interfaces
    >>>> that I
    >>> usually
    >>>> do for work with it though.
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe we need a comp.lang.java.fx group.
    >>>
    >>> My sole experience with JavaFX is the couple of hours I've spent
    >>> messing around with it this morning so I don't speak from any great
    >>> expertise. However, given the fact that JavaFX only works in Windows
    >>> XP/Vista/7 at the moment - a Mac version exists but is apparently not
    >>> that mature yet and a Linux version is anticipated _eventually_ - I
    >>> submit that JavaFX may not be worthy of a great deal of development
    >>> effort yet, at least for those who want to develop things that are
    >>> going to run on multiple platforms, some of which _aren't_ Windows.
    >>>
    >>> It may be "the next big thing" before too long and it may be worth
    >>> investing some time to learn now rather than jumping on the bandwagon
    >>> later but I'm not inclined to put much time into it until it's clear
    >>> that it will be made available for all the platforms on which we
    >>> expect to run our Java code. A statement of commitment indicating
    >>> that Mac and Linux versions WILL be available at the same or similar
    >>> level to the Windows versions by some not-too-distant date is
    >>> probably all I need to get more enthusiastic about JavaFX....

    >>
    >> Did you read the text you commented on?
    >>
    >> "6. Is JavaFX replacing Swing as the new client UI library for Java
    >> SE? Yes."
    >>
    >> It says that JavaFX will become part of Java SE.
    >>
    >> Then it will be on all platforms with (that version
    >> or higher of) Java SE.
    >>

    > That will be fine when it is true but my point was that it this hasn't
    > happened yet and Oracle hasn't committed to a specific date when it will
    > happen.
    >
    > I'm just a little leery about vaporware. It wouldn't be the first time
    > something like this was promised and then failed to happen for one reason
    > or another.
    >
    > It might be a little premature to embrace JavaFX given that Oracle's
    > intentions may not materialize.


    It is true that we do not know what version of Java SE it will be in.
    Nor do we know when that version will be available as a standard. And
    we obviously do not know when all Java implementations has implemented
    that standard (for some server platforms 1-2 years delay is common).

    But Oracle has said that it will be part of SE.

    And as I read the docs then Oracle has started distributing
    JavaFX with JRE from 7u2.

    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/downloads/index.html

    <quote>
    Starting with Java SE 7 Update 2 and JavaFX 2.0.2, the JavaFX Runtime is
    co-installed every time the JRE is installed.
    </quote>

    (that must be for Windows only)

    To me that is about as good as it an be for a non-paying customer.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 17, 2012
    #15
  16. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/20/2012 2:27 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    > In article<4f3d96c1$0$293$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
    >>>
    >>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.

    >>
    >> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

    >
    > It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
    > that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
    > whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
    > On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
    > only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
    > I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.


    The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
    of functionality, layout and style.

    Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
    price to pay to achieve that.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 20, 2012
    #16
  17. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/20/2012 8:09 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    > In article<4f42d9a5$0$295$>,
    > says...
    >
    >>>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
    >>>
    >>> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
    >>> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
    >>> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
    >>> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
    >>> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
    >>> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.

    >>
    >> The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
    >> of functionality, layout and style.
    >>
    >> Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
    >> price to pay to achieve that.

    >
    > You don't need fxml to achieve that.
    >
    > you can have a class for the layout, a class for the application code
    > and a .css file for the style.


    True, but with the FXML-Java split the technology assist with
    enforcing the split.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 21, 2012
    #17
  18. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/20/2012 8:28 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 2/20/2012 8:09 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >> In article<4f42d9a5$0$295$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>>>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>>>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.
    >>>>
    >>>> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
    >>>> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature
    >>>> and
    >>>> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
    >>>> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
    >>>> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
    >>>> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.
    >>>
    >>> The split in Java, FXML and CSS gives a pretty good separation
    >>> of functionality, layout and style.
    >>>
    >>> Not having everything checked at compile time is IMHO a small
    >>> price to pay to achieve that.

    >>
    >> You don't need fxml to achieve that.
    >>
    >> you can have a class for the layout, a class for the application code
    >> and a .css file for the style.

    >
    > True, but with the FXML-Java split the technology assist with
    > enforcing the split.


    Note that I will not recommend adding JavaScript to the
    mix, because then suddenly there is a somewhat blurred line
    between what is in Java and what is in JavaScript.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 21, 2012
    #18
  19. On 12-02-20 03:27 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    > In article <4f3d96c1$0$293$>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
    >>>
    >>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.

    >>
    >> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

    >
    > It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
    > that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
    > whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
    > On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
    > only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
    > I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.
    >
    > Kind regards,
    > Wanja
    >

    I don't know that much about FXML. I've used XAML a fair bit on the .NET
    side, and I expect the concepts are similar. I'll probably end up
    playing with FXML some, because it does look interesting: I'll be happy
    when Oracle comes out with Linux and Mac OS X support, right now I'll
    force myself to experiment on Windows.

    Point being, and this is something that is also applicable to the
    overall erratic, generally substandard history of Java IDE support for
    GUI design (some IDES good, some OK, some crappy), let's say for JSF
    with or without Facelets, you can get all that error-checking and code
    completion if someone builds it.

    To use another example, I can write complex XML complete with excellent
    schemas, and write XSLT 2.0 stylesheets that process that XML, but if
    I'm doing all of that using a non-aware text editor then I have no code
    completion, no validation, and no error checking as I edit. If I'm using
    advanced XML editors instead, I get all of that.

    Similarly, if an IDE chooses to make appropriate linkages between a GUI
    description language like FXML or XAML, and code-behind, then you've got
    that extra checking, and you can have code completion. There is no
    reason in principle why an IDE could not support both for FXML
    expression bindings or controller method event handlers, for example.

    A compiler is only one tool. You can't expect it to take care of
    everything for you.

    AHS
    --
    -- Gaiety is the most outstanding feature of the Soviet Union.
    Josef Stalin, November 1935
    Arved Sandstrom, Feb 25, 2012
    #19
  20. Knute Johnson

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 2/25/2012 10:37 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
    > On 12-02-20 03:27 PM, Wanja Gayk wrote:
    >> In article<4f3d96c1$0$293$>,
    >> says...
    >>>
    >>> On 2/16/2012 6:50 PM, Knute Johnson wrote:
    >>>> On 2/16/2012 3:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>>>> PS: JavaFX is actually rather cool.
    >>>>
    >>>> I bought a book and am starting to try to learn the differences. The
    >>>> thought of starting over with a new API is a little daunting.
    >>>
    >>> Do yourself a favor and start using FXML and CSS right away.

    >>
    >> It certainly looks different, but you lose all the nice error checking
    >> that the compiler does for you, you lose the code completion feature and
    >> whatnot, hell that FMXL doesn't even have a schema..
    >> On the other hand you'll have a good overview over the scene graph. I'd
    >> only use that feature if my GUI must be changeable without recompiling.
    >> I consider FXML a good format for GUI-Designers, that's all.


    > I don't know that much about FXML. I've used XAML a fair bit on the .NET
    > side, and I expect the concepts are similar. I'll probably end up
    > playing with FXML some, because it does look interesting:


    Adobe MXML and MS XAML is the same concept.

    > I'll be happy
    > when Oracle comes out with Linux and Mac OS X support, right now I'll
    > force myself to experiment on Windows.


    2.1 beta is available for Linux now.

    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/downloads/devpreview-1429449.html

    And according to roadmap
    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javafx/overview/roadmap-1446331.html
    MacOS X version will be GA in Q2 and Linux version in H2.

    Arne
    Arne Vajhøj, Feb 25, 2012
    #20
    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. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    672
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,184
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  3. Mathieu Dutour

    long long and long

    Mathieu Dutour, Jul 17, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    471
    santosh
    Jul 24, 2007
  4. Bart C

    Use of Long and Long Long

    Bart C, Jan 9, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    794
    Peter Nilsson
    Jan 15, 2008
  5. Daniel Pfeiffer

    GNU make & make.pl are dead: long live Perl makepp

    Daniel Pfeiffer, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    236
    Daniel Pfeiffer
    Sep 9, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page