Along those lines the Batik svg component has long had a SVGGraphics2d component that renders to svg output.
Yeah that is cool. Batik has a lot of nifti features but they aren’t documented very well.
A new interview with Richard Bair
The fact that it will NOT be open sourced is kind of a sign of the future… a really bad decision imo.
[quote]The fact that it will NOT be open sourced is kind of a sign of the future… a really bad decision imo.
[/quote]
Huh?
[quote]At JavaOne we announced that we would be releasing the UI controls under an open source license. I cannot comment on the specific plans, other than to say we are committed to and working on this plan.
[/quote]
Sounds like they are trying to get most of it under open source. But be unlikely to see the video stuff open sourced.
Sounds like they are trying to get most of it under open source. But be unlikely to see the video stuff open sourced.
[/quote]
I read that as open source components on top of a closed source ecosystem! It should all be released under the same licence as OpenJDK. Doing anything else just splits Java development in half for no discernible reason.
I agree with you and it seems that the JDK 1.7 does not use the same license than the JDK 1.6, should we be worried by this change?
tinfoil hat says yes
I’m not aware of any license change to OpenJDK, though you may have seen something I haven’t. JDK 1.7 and OpenJDK 1.7 aren’t quite the same thing - as far as I’m aware there is still some stuff in the JDK that was never opened. A change in licensing of JDK 1.7 shouldn’t affect OpenJDK as long as the changes still filter down. There are a few things I find worrying for Java at the moment - hopefully this is not one of them.
Apparently there will be a live video stream too (currently getting #500 at the moment, hope they fix it by next week)
6pm in California is 2am over here in the UK, with the talk proper at 3am. Might go to bed early and get up for the main talk. I kinda hope someone will post it on youtube though.
No sign of the public beta yet (I signed up to TechNet). I’ve built 3D block based level and model editors in anticipation. Maybe they’ll get TexturePaint implemented and other polygons will be doable.
finally the same license as jre
meaning, referring to my old thread about video playback http://www.java-gaming.org/index.php/topic,23764.msg199261.html
javafx 2 will be the thing to playback video soon. Can’t wait.
Without Linux and Mac support, JavaFX 2.0 is rather The … nothing ;D
In the interview it says that those will follow and eventually it will merge with JDK 7
So I have my hopes up.
I read that as open source components on top of a closed source ecosystem! It should all be released under the same licence as OpenJDK. Doing anything else just splits Java development in half for no discernible reason.
[/quote]
I have very rarely looked inside the JDK source code, and I know lots of excellent Java developers who have never looked inside. Personally I don’t care if I can view the source code or not; decent video playback, graphics performance and supporting current media formats is far more important to me.
Well, I’ve looked at the JDK source a bit, usually to find workarounds for things, and there’s a range of stuff on here (mapped objects recently) that rely on knowing how things in the JDK work. However, access to the source code is not really the point of my comment …
What’s important to you is pretty much what’s important to me. However, I want to see this in the JDK or at least distributable under identical terms, otherwise you can say goodbye to any form of WORA, and you get developers targeting different subsets of functionality for different platforms even more than today.
I also want to see it open for stability’s sake. At the beginning, JavaFX was being developed under identical terms to OpenJDK, but then it got taken back in-house. Just look at all the stuff that never saw the light of day (the real slim shady stuff, etc.) because of this. Having this stuff open ensures that the code is out there and usable if there’s enough interest, even if the company behind it decides that it’s no longer a priority. There’s a lot of interesting things going on around OpenJDK because companies like Red Hat are contributing things because it’s open. I’d like to see JavaFX benefit from this same multi-vendor approach.
This is quite different for those who contribute to its source code…
Is that a response to my last post. Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?
If Oracle dropped JavaFX tomorrow, then I would expect a group would pop up to finish the work. However like on the other majority of occasions that this happens, I would also expect the code to slowly become buggy and out-of-date. The issue is that without tonnes of interest, or a company paying people to work on it, then the vast majority of open-source projects go no where.
Being open source doesn’t really guarantee anything about it’s future.
Yes it is. When I contribute, I look at the license. I would not contribute by any means to a closed source software, I might report a bug but I would refuse spending some time to try to fix it. I don’t want my contributions to be added into a product which could become completely closed, I’m not paid to work for Oracle. When I develop free open source softwares, I work for the whole mankind.
Moreover, I prefer using OpenJDK when it is technically possible because I prefer its license as a user of free open source softwares. When I want to buy a fruit or a vegetable, I try to favour ethical products over the other products if it is still affordable for me, I try to do the same in computer science.
Firstly, I just want to reiterate that my primary point here, which is relevant whatever your views on open-source development, is that I want to see JavaFX under the same license as OpenJDK because I don’t want to see a two-tier Java ecosystem. I think we all want to see graphics and media support improved, but I want to see this happen in Java itself. I don’t want to see the JRE just grow and grow - I want to see Java modularised, the older buggy stuff deprecated and downloaded on demand, and the newer stuff find it’s way in. However, the JavaFX benefits will never find their way into core Java unless they’re license compatible with OpenJDK, as OpenJDK is now the reference implementation for Java!
How? And with what???
I’m not claiming it’s a panacea or without issues. However, to paraphrase what you wrote - the issue is that without a company paying people to work on it, all closed-source abandon-ware goes nowhere!
I think this is doubly important with libraries, particularly when developing something for a third-party client. I want to know that if a bug comes up in a library I’m using, at the worst case scenario I can fork the code and fix it. My client doesn’t care that X library is no longer a priority for Mega Corp. - they want me to honour my contract!
Our views are not that dissimilar, though I wouldn’t go as far as saying “I work for the whole mankind” 
I was just emphasising that there are reasons for preferring JavaFX to be open-source above and beyond it just being open-source.