OSNews

I agree, this article takes a bunch of folklore and tries to dream up a drama that it then packages as reporting. It's true that the Java players have been in a pissing match, but not that they aren't been willing to cooperate--JSF being the prime example of a successful standard developed and supported by all parties. I don't think JavaFX was developed outside the JCP in order to promote vendor lock-in; I imagine it had a lot more to do with the fact that Sun needed to push it out the door ASAP or risk JavaFX never seeing the light of day, period. I also think Oracle has seen the light in regards to UI-framework lock-in, and I imagine Ellison, if he's truly committed to JavaFX, will try to get it reviewed by the JCP ASAP.

The most important thing to take from this announcement is that Ellison is sold on JavaFX, or at least wants to be convinced. To me it sounds like he has set down a gauntlet: The JavaFX salespitch is "rapid development of fluid UI", now it's time for the Sun developers not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk. The success of this project, be it a single app or the whole suite being ported, will potentially show the world what JavaFX is capable of, while at the same time making OOo that much more competitive with MS's offering.

The article gets a couple of other things wrong. Although JSF is a layout language, it is not a toolkit, and as such does not directly compete with JavaFX. JSF is not going anywhere. In fact, I'm sure Ellison isn't the only one who's thought about the potential of using JavaFX to render JSF layouts, so that a web application can use HTML/AJAX or JavaFX alternately depending on the client environment.

As for people who say "It can't be done"... please keep in mind that OOo has already been ported to Java (see NeoOffice), and that IBM has already succeeded in a total revamp of the OOo interface in a rather short period of time (see Symphony). Also keep in mind that rapid development/prototyping is exactly what JavaFX is made for...

My apologies.... Don't ask me where I got that silly idea into my head...

On the bright side, the task that the NeoOffice developers undertook is actually quite similar to Ellison's goal now: redoing the UI layer in JAva.

I avoid OpenOffice.org mostly because it's such a huge, slow beast. It really is god damn slow. But garbage? Far from it. It has almost every feature you could hope for in an office suite and it works well and is stable. I'd much rather see that they still go through with converting it to C++ code and throw out the deprecated stuff there.

But those who are unhappy with OO.o can still try KOffice out, it seems they are going quite fast forward nowadays.

Don't think OpenOffice is garbage? Just try using Apple iWork for one week, and you will know what I mean.

Hell no. I don't support Apple unless I absolutely must.

I'm not "supporting" Apple. But interface-wise, they do good software (despite some flaws they don't fix because of arrogance), and I really think user interface is the most critical feature on every software (at least the ones that require human interaction)

Like or not, Apple is reference on user interface design, and I would love if every company was as rigorous on interface quality as they are.

Of course, if on this rewrite, they hire some good interface designers, some good interface developers and remake the entire workflow and design choices of the application, maybe they could be able of making a good software. In this case, I would happily shut my mouth and apologize. But I never saw a decent user interface coming from companies like Sun, Oracle or even IBM, so I really think that wont be the case

I think iWork is garbage, actually. I bought it, but I really regret the purchase. OO.org is better for free.

JavaFX runtime is proprietary because a lot of "web technologies" that Sun licensed are not open. Like the on2 video codecs, etc. Sun has been going a break neck speeds to opensource whatever they can. This process may slow now that oracle has purchased them, but JavaFX's core stack will be open (compiler is already so, 2D Scene Graph is, and hopefully the 1.2 additions of UI elements such as checkboxes and drop down lists will follow).

The unfortunate reality of the web is that most common codecs and plug-ins are not fully open, which hamstrings anyone trying to create an open platform for developers that interops with current tech (like flash video or IE). JavaFX/OpenjFx will live a similar existence as something like Solaris/OpenSolaris because of these propretary elements.

It's good to hear, but the licensing problem remains. I don't know whether JavaFX competes with AJAX or, as you said, "is the new Swing", but neither AJAX nor Swing have those licensing problems, AFAIK. From the get-go, there should be a clean separation between the free and opens source JavaFX core and whatever proprietary codecs, plugins, backends, whatever, are supported, so that neither FOSS developers nor purist FOSS users need to license any of those.

While you have a point, learning the ins-and-outs of so many programs is a bit onerous. Most people don't enjoy playing with text production apps -- they just want to get s*** done.

Not to mention the compatibility headaches.... All that is fine if you're the only one accessing the documents, or if you don't require anyone else to edit them.... Otherwise, you'll have a lot of unhappy coworkers...

Yes, I was inferring that you used PDF when I said "if you're the only one editing them"....

I don't see it happening. In fact, it strikes me more as a means to cite what JavaFX could be used for, for clients to think about in their own future developments.