Java3D Source Code Released

mrp101 writes "Over the past few months (aka year) the future of Java3D has been in question. Not too long ago Apple announced a port to Mac OS X, but still no official update from Sun. A few weeks ago Sun announced that they were going to release the source code and begin collecting comments for version 1.4/2.0. And today they delivered, right before the JavaOne conference. The announcement can be found here(1) and the CVS here(2). The code includes the core scenegraph, the vector math library, and Sun's own add-on utility libraries."

Comments

Re:Testing the waters?

[InodoroPereyra]

I'd like to think so. However, they chose a BSD license apparently. In my humble opinion, if they want to open Java, they should go GPL. This way, at least they know that nobody (like MS) will use the code they are opening after years of development, turn it into a proprietary, incompatible beast and release it and even perhaps make money out of Sun's effort, without contributing anything back.

In fact, OpenOffice uses a dual licensing scheme that includes the GPL right ?

Bottomline: come on Sun, opensourcing Java will be the final step to make it a Standard (it is almost there, how many IT Jobs requre Java these days ?)

That's too easy

[KalvinB]

I'm currently working on what will be a large number of tutorials that go through the process of building a graphics API with pure software rendering. Starting with JavaScript and eventually will get into C and ASM.

JavaScript 3D

The most recent lesson (written Friday) demonstrates how to do texture mapping. With a color key to boot.

With OpenGL and DirectX already being used with pretty much everything I don't think Java3D is going to go very far. It has no real advantage on the desktop. The problem is that most devices that rely on Java like Cellphones don't have a large enough screen to make 3D really useable. And they certainly don't have the hardware acceleration.

Where Java3D might have a chance, developers are probably better off sticking to software rendering and 2D games with some 3D effects like lighting, alpha blending and whatnot.

I'd imagine they're making it open source because they realize that without a community to call it their own there's probably not going to be much of a fan base to get anything practical (read: that can make money) done with it. If anything goes wrong, Sun isn't really out anything.

Ben

Re:Testing the waters?

[Anonymous Coward]

> opensourcing Java will be the final step to
> make it a Standard...

Ugh!!! Why is it that people in the open-source
community can't seem to grasp the concept that
open-source is not necessarily equivalent to
open-standard. One has nothing to do with the
other. Closed source can ahdere to standards
just as well as open-source. This *isn't* a
tirade against open source; it's just that I'm
amazed at how often I seen this fallacy crop up
in open-source circles.

Java3D is a superset to DirectX, OpenGL

[karnat10]

I'd like to think that under the hood Java3D uses whatever hardware accelerated 3D technology is available on the current system.

So whether Java is "just another 3D library" or an abstraction layer to truly make cross-platform development easier depends on the quality of the VM.

Re:Speed of 3D in Java?

[Anonymous Coward]

Java FP may run well on Sparc, but do you know anybody who owns a Sparc machine? I presume my university's got a few of them, but absolutely nobody I know uses them for their own machines. And that's the crux of the issue. It's fine to say that x86 is the inferior platform and all, but the fact of the matter is that it's the platform that the vast majority of end-users use.

Re:Testing the waters?

[Sinterklaas]

So what you are saying is that the BSD licence is idealistic and the GPL is pragmatic but both tend towards the same goal?

By using those words you are already showing bias. You have decided that the GPL is necessary to get contributions and that's why you call it pragmatic. If you believe that you get plenty, if not more, useful contributions with the BSD license, you could call the BSD license pragmatic and the GPL idealistic.

If that's the only important difference then can we stop arguing over which one is better?

No, another important difference is that you can't use GPLed code without GPLing your entire app (you can't have one part BSD and another part GPL). That means that in some cases, the GPL will actually prevent people from doing the right thing (using open source code and giving back code). Those practical considerations make it so that non-GPL open source developers have a big reason to lobby against using the GPL. I think that the arguments would be much less if the GPL-advocates would ask for the LGPL instead of the GPL.