Skip to main content

Effects in JavaFX: Quality

Posted by campbell on January 7, 2009 at 9:29 AM PST


Related Topics >>


found a bug report, same symptoms:

how does the JavaFX deployment script detect the installed java version? I don't think it uses the deployment toolkit... -I installed 6u12b3 and got the "please install 6u11 popups". -removed 6u12 and installed 6u11 -still get please install 6u11 popups... -if i cancel the installation twice, the applet loads deployment toolkit reports u11 so everything seems to be fine: btw i get two dialogs + installation attempts per applet this means 4 on the aggregated page

Thank you very much for your work Please check you page without Java plugin installed in your browser or without java installed at all. You get 2 message dialogs only with OK button: "Java is required to run JavaFX applications. You will now be redirected to a Java update site..." -- after redirection to "The current java on this system (0 - Java Not enabled) ..." So there is no chance to read you blog without Java because of redirection to Java update site. There should be Yes/No dialog to confirm redirection to Java updates. Without redirection the page should be readable and without running applets... Thank you. Martin JANDA

Reproduced on Vista Ultimate (SP1). Desktop deployment is never an easy task - but at least you have a rock solid language and library to start off with ;-) java version "1.6.0_11" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_11-b03) Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 11.0-b16, mixed mode, sharing) Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]

@mbien, @ilazarte: I'm seeing the same thing on Mac OS X with Safari too. Others have reported it to me internally as well. I've filed a bug here: Thanks for bringing these deployment issues up. I purposely decided to embed JavaFX applets in my last two entries exactly for this reason. Yes, it will be a distraction from the topic at hand at first (because of bugs like these), but it helps to shed light on the pain points in the JavaFX deployment story. If we can't successfully embed simple applets like these, then we can forget about success at a larger scale. Anyway, our deployment team is working to fix these things, so I hope soon we can get back to talking about effects without distraction :)

@mbien: Currently, yes, that is correct. However, a long time ago I had an idea that for the downscaling case, like the one you cite, we should be able to scale the kernel and work on the downscaled representation, sort of the opposite of the "dubious approach" I referred to above. I never got around to investigating it more, so I just filed a bug on this (; thanks for bringing this up.

skip to the JSL! :) No kidding, this stuff is interesting. bwt, I get the same on the second applet issue: 6u11b3, winxp

only one applet starts if i visit the main blog page: the second spins forever in the loading icon state. 6u11 winxp

Slider fails to work on Mac OS X 10.5.6 with Java 1.6.0_07.

does this mean that the shadow is rasterised small and scaled up and the rectangle is rendered as vector graphic after transformation (the "obvious way for rectangles ;)")? this would mean that we would get a performance decrease the other way around: fancy shadowed 1024x1024 rectangle scaled down to 48x48 would be rendered slower than a "native" unscaled but still fancy shadowed 48x48 quad is this correct? very good blog entry, there are not many sources which tell us useful things about jfx