Javalobby - Comments for "Why Swing / JavaFX is not a platform (yet)"

@Jonathan: By

fred swartz — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:50:26 -0400

@Jonathan: By "idiosyncratic" I mean that your layout proposal seemed to be designed for one particular use, and not for general layout. Since you posted such a tiny fragment, perhaps my extrapolation of how it would scale to a realistic layout was incorrect. Showing proposed code for an entire layout would either expose your layout's weaknesses or show my misunderstanding.

Although giving components responsibility for their own layout has a nice self-organizing feel to it, the result is an unmangeable increase in coupling. It is this coupling complexity that is the objection to something like GroupLayout, which gives satisfactory results, but can't be easily written and modified by hand.

I'm in complete agreement with you that we should be thinking outside the Layout Manager box. Sun has been unwilling to produce a good layout manager, and has turned to JavaFX. Perhaps this DSL will be OK (I haven't tried it yet), or one of the YAML or XML configuration interpreters (I've tried several). Although I didn't happen to like your last proposal, I like the idea that you're looking for something better.

If by different, you mean

jonathanlocke — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:18:14 -0400

If by different, you mean wider, then I agree.

I find it interesting that on the one hand you want to question the idea of layout managers and on the other hand, I suggest a direction to look for an alternative (impractical as it may be with the current architecture swing) and you label it "idiosyncratic". There is actually a certain OO logic to the approach of avoiding setters and having components determine their own location (even if they choose to delegate this in some circumstances to something like a layout manager). The current architectural idea of components and "layout managers" in swing, at least in my mind falls short in capturing and encapsulating component location, instead making that extrinsic to this fairly arbitrary API. The trouble there is that you're stuck with just one conception of layout... which lands us where we are today...

> ...and we would be better

mgrev — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:29:46 -0400

> ...and we would be better off with something like Jacek Furmankiewicz's JavaBuilder

Which is using MigLayout under the cover... :)

@Jonathan: You seem to

fred swartz — Tue, 20 May 2008 05:52:35 -0400

@Jonathan: You seem to inhabit a different world from most developers. Although I understand the designer's desire for total control, it leads to so many problems as to be useless for most real purposes. The problems with your blog suggestions on layout seem similarly idiosyncratic.

That the Java layout managers can't make either you or the rest of us happy shows there's a big problem. Perhaps the very idea of layout manager in the traditional Java sense should be questioned, and we would be better off with something like Jacek Furmankiewicz's JavaBuilder, or ...

No, I do all of those

jonathanlocke — Sun, 18 May 2008 18:08:52 -0400

No, I do all of those things. I was writing constrained layout managers under Windows before Java existed. Believe me, I understand the problem domain fully.

I just ALSO think that the Java platform should support consistent text rendering for people who want precise imaging.

As for better layout managers, I'm not sure I like the existing architecture that well. I certainly don't have time to fix this problem but I have posted a few quick thoughts on component layouts on my blog

I guess you are English

mgrev — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:06:36 -0400

I guess you are English speaking and never create internationalized apps. You don't create apps that can scale to HiDPI screens or that can change the font to accomodate for those how see badly. You know that all your users have approximately the same screen size so that all dialogs and windows are statically set to your predefined sizes. What you value the most is that the GUI should look exactly the same pixel by pixel no matter what.

If that is so, the yes, a null layout manager is fine. For us that do not create apps that fall under these constraints, a good layout manager is better and I wish there was one in the JDK.

No, I would say we live in

jonathanlocke — Sun, 18 May 2008 16:36:00 -0400

No, I would say we live in the same world with the only exception being that fixed layouts are impossible in your world.

In your world, if I were creating a fixed size Java FX advertisement I would be forced to use a layout manager and the result would look slightly different on every platform. In my world, the creative team would get precisely what they wanted and without the use of a layout manager. Everything that you do would still be possible (although I can think of better ways to implement layouts).

hi, i am studing mca

karthika — Sun, 18 May 2008 03:43:53 -0400

hi, i am studing mca student. i want to j2ee books and servelets books

as i intrested in java platform.

how do you apply in servelet, rmi ,ejp java beans concepts pls reply in my mail

as i teach the national seminar topics in above

so pls request the presentation or books

Well, then we live in very

mgrev — Sun, 18 May 2008 03:17:32 -0400

Well, then we live in very different worlds.

Yes. That's it. What I want

jonathanlocke — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:19:13 -0400

Yes. That's it. What I want is for null layout to be a workable and correct option for fixed UIs.

The fact that even the newer layout managers give me a headache is a separate conversation.

What is a Layout Manager

mgrev — Sat, 17 May 2008 19:24:45 -0400

What is a Layout Manager though? Unless you go 100% with null layout and position everything by x and y in pixels you are using a Layout Manger, even if you don't call it that. One that can only position the right edge of a compoent to the container's edge is still layout manager...

What you are saying is that the layout managers you have encountered in Java is crap, right? Or?

I never said we didn't need

jonathanlocke — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:42:29 -0400

I never said we didn't need layout managers. I just don't think we should be forced to use them when the problem doesn't require it. Is that really so much to ask?

So you want to make sure

jonathanlocke — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:39:20 -0400

So you want to make sure that there's no simple way to create a Java FX application for people who don't have any of these requirements?

Totally disagree :-) RIA - a

fabriziogiudici — Fri, 16 May 2008 13:53:24 -0400

Totally disagree :-) RIA - a term that should defined in context, but I think I understand what you mean - is only a part of the problem, there are also "regular" desktop applications, for instance those in the enterprise where you don't need custom look and feels - you just need to go to NetBeans and Eclipse showcases of the related RCP technologies for dozens of examples. And even when you have custom L&F, it's not implied that the whole application has the custom L&F. For instance, if you look at Adobe Lightroom for Mac OS X, it has a custom L&F in the main window, but all the dialogs are regular Aqua.

You can't just ship a Swing

jonathanlocke — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:46:18 -0400

You can't just ship a Swing application to Mac users if it carries "a slicker" metal look and feel.

Totally disagree. That's what most of this RIA stuff is... custom UI LAF.