Re: Java geometry question (awt vs. javafx)

Posted by Michael P Ellis on Jan 12, 2015; 3:33pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Java-geometry-question-awt-vs-javafx-tp5011182p5011183.html

Java FX is only bundled with Java 8, as far as I understand, ImageJ is built with Java6 (this means it will run with Java 7 and Java 8, but only if you explicitly launch the ij.jar with those Java JVMs)

The ImageJ Mac OS-X app is a wrapper that defaults to launching the ij.jar with a Java 6 JVM.

I understand that there are discussion of getting imageJ to drop Java 6 and go with Java 7 (this gets my vote).

I myself have been using Java 7 features for ImageJ plugins but (as said) for this to work I have to expressly launch Java with a Java 7 JVM.

Despite Java FX not grabbing much of the limelight (when compared to HTML 5) my (limited) experience with it leads me to thinking it is a cracking technology with much to offer.

That said, I am not sure Java FX will fair any better in batch (headless mode) as JavaFX initialisation depends on having a valid display available.

— Michael Ellis


On 12 Jan 2015, at 15:10, Burger Wilhelm <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A quick question to the Java aficionados in this group:
>
> I have (like others) been using the java.awt.geom package (e.g., Point2D, Color, ...) extensively in many IJ plugins and API code related to geometry. Given the problems with AWT in batch (non-display) mode, I was thinking of using the javafx.geometry package (which apparently is now part of the official Java release) as a future replacement.
>
> Any comments if this might be a good idea at all?
>
> --Wilhelm
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html

--
ImageJ mailing list: http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html