I've just finished a flash project where I did the entire project in "pure" AS3, without the use of the Flex framework. I found very little written about this on the web, so I'm not sure if this is a common way to develop RIA's, or if I've jumped off the shoulders of giants and done something stupid that will bite me later.
It seemed like a good idea at the time (famous last words!), but was hoping to hear from someone who could confirm.
Thanks,
Marcus
There's nothing wrong with it. People do that every day using FlashDevelop and AS3-only frameworks like PureMVC. Doing a complex app without any framework to support may get difficult to support in the future, but should be OK if you adhere to well known best practices. Future maintainability, especially if it has to be maintained be someone else, can also be greatly improved by using common design patterns throughout your code and architecture. Barring all that, if you're really just slinging code to build something with any real complexity, you're probably screwed unless you documented every function and the overall architecture very very well. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day you're (or someone else is) screwed! ;)
Flex is nice if you want to create something that looks great real fast within the confines of what the Flex framework gives you.
We used to fight weird framework bugs which Adobe didn't seem to care about or took way too long to fix. So we opted to drop Flex in favor of our own UI framework and we've never looked back since.
Sounds like a perfectly good idea. Flex is really just an overlay of rapid-prototyping, and communication standards, on top of pure AS3.
What you gain in ease of development and a large library and API, you lose in streamlined, strength and simplicity.
I'm currently developing a medium sized app in Flex and although the first phase of development was a breeze, the later stages have been fraught with weird framework eccentricities.
It is definitely okay. For example, I've heard that the Issuu.com platform is not based on Flex but a custom framework.
Thanks all! I've been very happy with AS3, and like the amount of control I get, as opposed to using MXML/Flex. It's good to hear I'm not crazy!
Related
I am trying to develop several small machine(such as a ic-m700pro) simulator in flex. I have been read document and tried in both PureMVC and Mate, each for two day. I don't have experience enough to choose the right one. I just want to develop fast.
So which is more productive? PureMVC or Mate, please give me advice.
Thanks in advance.
It all depends on what you mean by productivity and what you want to achieve of course.
For your use cases it might even be more productive to use no framework at all.
In my experience, using a framework has certain benfits like
Increasing maintenance productivity
Increasing interchangability of developers
Structuring projects in a proven manner
Eliminating the need for a lot of boiler plate code
Easier for working in a team of developers
Comparing frameworks is always a bit specific to the project and your needs.
There really is no right or wrong.
However I can give you some pointers
I would advise you to not use Mate.
It is mxml based only and could give you a lot of problems with performance if you do not know what is going on behind the scenes.
In my opinion, the code you write with this framework will be a maintenance nightmare.
PureMVC is great and will give you more control and will increase code maintainability.
However it does come with the additional overhead classes.
The documentation is awesome and there is a solid community.
I could really advise you to look into Robotlegs or Swiz.
They both are both very solid frameworks that have a quite similar feature set.
Both are quite similar to PureMVC, but they also feature an IOC container.
These frameworks are very mature, have great documentation and great communities.
Also, check these out:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flex_framework.html
http://www.richardlord.net/blog/flexcaster-robotlegs
I'm planning to start a web based stock and current managament project.
I want app to be Ajax but I don't want to spend my time for client-side code.
Thus, I think to use coolite for my presentation layer.
However, before starting project I want to hear some advices about it.
Is it worth using in a big project and do you have any other advice about this issue?
This would be much better asked on the Coolite forums where you'll hear from actual users of the framework rather than people who will just knock it because it's not jQuery (sigh). IMHO, it is a pretty solid framework -- however, I've never used it in a production app. You really should spend some time evaluating it yourself -- take a day and mess around with their samples and see if you can build something simple. Ultimately only you can decide if it will work for your needs.
I'm yet to come across a javascript to asp net framework that isn't full of bugs. I'm in the process of an application rewrite and I'm ripping out the ajax frameworks and just using jquery.
I've found it simple to code, fast to run and easy to bug fix.
I can't comment on Coolite, but for my 10c I'd suggest just learning jQuery.
Way back when Coolite first came out I tried it and wasn't impressed and it ties you down somewhat so I just use Ext with .NET pure, a bit more work but will save you in the long run I think and keep you flexible to changes in both frameworks.
Here's my particular situation...
I have a decent amount of experience with webforms, and I must say, a lot of it has been pretty frustrating. I like that there are lots of built-in controls, but then I discover that they don't quite do what I want, out of the box. I end up rolling my own controls (that inherit from the built-in controls), such as GridViewThatCanSortItself or GridViewThatHasASelectionColumn (these may not have been the actual names, but you get the idea). I've often wondered, while struggling mightily to build such classes, whether figuring out the often convoluted event model was worth it. My attempts to use css to style things have been frustrating as well. There are some ASP.NET controls that will result in one html tag for one set of attributes and a different tag with another set of attributes. You don't realize this until you notice your css only works half the time.
So, my brain starts to wonder, could ASP.NET MVC be the answer? Reading some of the posts on SO has basically given me the impression that, while webforms definitely has its issues, I'd only be trading one set of problems for another. It even seems like Microsoft is trying to talk me out of it:
Quote from the asp.net site (http://www.asp.net/learn/mvc/tutorial-01-cs.aspx)
ASP.NET MVC...works well for Web applications that are supported by large teams of developers and Web designers who need a high degree of control over the application behavior.
That is really not me. Most of my projects are relatively small, and I'm usually the only programmer. I sometimes need to create very custom or unusual UI's, but I definitely don't have a team of programmers who can build components for me.
There is also the issue of javascript. I have a definite working knowledge of html and css, but I can't say the same for javascript. As clumsy and bloated as they are, I've been able to do some smooth enough looking things with UpdatePanels. I'm not sure how much time I'd need to spend just learning the javascript to be able to handle even simple AJAX scenarios in ASP.NET MVC.
I'm about to start working on a relatively simple and small web app, so now would be the time to take the plunge if I'm going to take the plunge. This app will use a SQL Server Express (2005 or 2008) back-end, and I'm thinking of also trying out SqlMetal as an ORM solution. So, that's already one thing I'm going to have to learn, although I at least have experience with--and really like--LinqToXml and LinqToObject. The pages of the web app will have some data grids (some with link columns), input boxes, labels, drop-down lists, check boxes, radio buttons, and submit/action buttons. I don't foresee anything more complicated than that. There will be about six or seven pages total.
Questions:
Given my experience, how painful will it be to learn ASP.NET MVC? Will it be worth it?
I've read some earlier questions comparing webforms to MVC, so I'm curious, How has MVC evolved over the past year or so? Is there anything new that would make the learning curve less steep?
Do I literally have to write code to generate all html by hand or are there code/libraries readily available in the community to assist with the process? (I know I read something about "html helpers"--that may be what I'm asking about here.)
Any other advice?
Update
Another question that occurred to me: Is the transition from ASP.NET webforms to MVC anything like going from standard WPF (using code-behind) to MVVM? I found learning WPF itself to be pretty challenging (and I still couldn't say I really get everything about it), but learning to work with WPF using the MVVM pattern was a relatively painless transition. So, I'm wondering how similar a jump it is to go from webforms to ASP.NET MVC.
My advice is to work through the Nerd Dinner Tutorial from the first chapter of Professional ASP.NET MVC (and then buy the whole book, it's great) to get a feel for how it fits together and how it works for you. This covers most of what you are concerned about above.
You will have to get your hands dirty with regards working with raw HTML but this is no way near as terrifying as it may sound. Especially as you're having issues where Web Forms takes control.
Yes, Asp.Net Mvc might be a solution for your problems.
I would highly recommend you not to rush
(without better knowledge you will end up at disappointment).
But in either way - it definitely be worth it. You will learn a lot.
Start with bunch of sample applications while reading some books (start with Sanderson`s, continue with Mvc In Action). Familiarize yourself with asp.net mvc. It demands different way of thinking about web development you are likely used to. And don't be afraid of 3rd party tools - get used to them because asp.net mvc does not focus on 'ready 2 drop through designer and use' solutions and lack of super cool and shiny (with awful js/html underneath) controls at start really frightens.
After few weeks of playing around with it - you will actually be able to answer this question yourself.
And that's the one and only answer that's worth something.
Personally - i prefer asp.net mvc framework and don't want to go back despite that in some cases it does take more work (i.e. - implementation of custom pagination (which can be easily made way more sophisticated than one that pagination control provides)).
Framework demands better knowledge of OOP, architecture and design knowledge, good sense of code tidiness because there is much less 'signs' that provide direction of one and correct way of doing things - they must be figured out in most cases by yourself. So - it is easier to drown in your own sh*t, html tag soup etc. if you are unsure and/or don't know what you are doing.
I kind a disagree with that statement about large developer team. This is where knowledge about OOP, 'convention over configuration' and extensability of Mvc framework comes into play. As i see it - it's way more easier (this is really really subjective) to write code that's reusable. And with features like templates (in mvc version no2) count of code lines is reduced drastically.
And learn javascript. You are missing a lot. Play around with jQuery if you haven't done that yet (greatly reduces cross-browser compability problems). Firebug plugin for FireFox is a great aid at this (for debugging purposes). AJAX`ifying your mvc website might seem awkward at first (there's a great tips in 'Mvc in action' book about this topic like form hijacking that can be used to achieve so called progressive enchancement with AJAX), but once you get used to JS - it feels superb. One thing to mention - JS is quite sharp tool (if you don't drop what you know about development in .NET environment and don't use it as it's supposed to). It's easy to screw up JS code base in no time.
Another thing - there's a bunch of myths about mvc framework along those who have touched only web forms.
It is not hard to work with raw html.
It is not hard to read form values (binding mechanism is excellent and easily customizable/extensible).
I'm sure there are more. Just can't remember at the moment. :)
#DanThMan, I had the same reservations you did when I first took a look at the framework but having worked with it now for some time there is no way, given the choice, that you'd get me back into WebForms.
I also write, from time to time, small applications where I am the only developer and I thank God I stuck to the MVC framework and took the time to really learn it.
In my mind it has made programming fun again and I can now maintain sites quickly and easily which is a first.
For my money this is the way to go but it's a steep learning curve and you need time to get to really understand it. If you have the time I'd say go for it.
There's some good answers here and some good ones in other threads as well. I'll take a stab at a question that hasn't really been addressed yet.
How has MVC evolved over the past year
or so? Is there anything new that
would make the learning curve less
steep?
I made a conscious switch to MVC about 8 months ago and haven't looked back. Version 1 was stable and I began to use it on a couple of sites with the help of a couple of books and the internet of course. Resources were good back then but since I switched things have really blown up in a good way.
There are a couple of books out there for version 1 that are top notch (Steve Sanderson's - Pro ASP.NET MVC Framework and the Nerd Dinner book come to mind). And there is definitely asp.net MVC blood in the water so I imagine there will be some great version 2 books down the line.
The developer community, especially here, is excellent and it's getting better. "asp.net-mvc" is currently the 16th most used tag on this site and often has a very high amount of views per question. As of today I have yet to have a question that hasn't been answered. There's a lot of smart people looking at the MVC questions who are willing to help.
The contrib library over at codeplex is also getting better and getting some nice participation. They've done a great job of filling in some holes that version 1 has left. I can only think that this will continue to get stronger as MVC gets older.
The new features for version 2 are in my opinion awesome. I won't name my favorites as they won't mean much to you if you haven't played with MVC much but just know that the development team has listened and included a number of great enhancements for the new version. They are very actively seeking feedback and always looking for improvements. Do not expect this change anytime soon. (One day I called up Microsoft and said "Shorten '[AcceptVerb(Http.Post)]' to '[HttpPost]'" and bam, Mvc 2 was my idea.)
The point I'm trying to make is: since I made the switch I've seen things get better and better. I'm incredibly happy with my decision and I'm excited for the future of this project. Version 1 is good, Version 2 is better and I can't wait to see what 3, 4, and 5 ... hold.
And I'll leave you with this: I've now converted a number of friends from WebForms to MVC. Every single one of the them is glad they made the switch and the ones that work with all aspects of an application (C# code, html, css, javascript, data access, unit testing, etc) will never go back and are loving the asp.net MVC life.
Given my experience, how painful will it be to learn ASP.NET MVC? Will it be worth it?
Yes and yes. It will be painful and it will be worth it and here's why. You will be a better programmer for it and your skills will more easily transfer to other platforms. MVC is a very common pattern that you will find over and over again in just about every popular language.
You will be working more closely with html, javascript, and css, but that's web programming and you're better off biting the bullet sooner than later.
having worked my last few projects (prior to embracing mvc) using my own controls being rolled via the HtmlTextWriter, I actually found th transition quite straightfwd. i have to say tho', i did put it off until v1.0 was well and truly 'out there' and only made strides from aug/sept 09. i'm glad i got into it as the main reasons i had been using the HtmlTextWriter in webforms was to overcome some of the basic issues of class names and id's when using jquery. i'm not going to say that v1 is a silver bullet but it certainly just works in tandem with my mindset at the moment. as for literature, i too read the sanserson and nerd dinner books and took plenty away from them. at the same time, i also got into subsonic v3 and found a fair amount of tips on rob's site to get me going.
i seriously can't imagine having to go 'back' to the webforms paradigm as i had been looking for a way to drop the page lifecycle and controls bloat for such a long time (i had even looked at php framewirks at one point as a way out of the webforms dilema - kohana is a great little php framework).
anyway, just my scottish 2 pence worth...
merry xmas all and a happy 2010
jimi
Some developers seem to have an aversion to component-oriented programming. For others, it feels natural. If you find yourself constantly fighting the standard components, then it's easy enough to roll your own from scratch--which you would basically end up doing in MVC anyway. If you find yourself fighting the unit test model with web forms, you will find things easier with MVC.
However, MVC isn't a cure-all; there's a lot to learn. Some apps will be less complex than with web forms, and some will be much more complex.
I've found that web forms don't really gel with many developers until they deeply understand the page life cycle and use of ViewState. Until that point, there seems to be a lot of trial and error -- but it's easier to learn that than MVC with IOC, etc. As far as customizing output, it's often easier to use control adapters than to subclass the control. In case it helps, I walk through these issues from the web forms side in my book: Ultra-Fast ASP.NET.
In the end, I think it's partly a mindset thing, and which model fits the way you solve problems and think about your application better.
I have been seeing some Flex Frameworks, but would like to ask to the programmers and Architects down here on which has suited best in your application.
Cairngorm
Pure MVC
Mate Framework
Custom One.
After using, in turn, all three of frameworks you listed, I can easily conclude that Mate is by far the superior framework. Of course, that's only my opinion and determining what makes a framework superior differs depending on your requirements.
To me, Mate's most appealing feature is how well it separates the different tiers of your application. After becoming familiar with it, I could never go back to using a framework that makes extensive use of global-state "Singletons" (Cairngorm, PureMVC).
However, Mate can probably be a bit difficult getting started with as the documentation is still a bit lacking and outdated, making it hard to know where to find the newest information. Some of the best practices and approaches that have been ironed out are to be found in the Mate forums, requiring some digging through posts. One of the most active users on that forum, Theo, has written a very good summary on the benefits of Mate in the following post:
Flex MVC Frameworks
PureMVC.... I like to have control and not relying on data binding... also since its been ported in different languages it has more value in my book than just a Flex only framework. Overall any MVC architecture is a plus in my book and it comes down to personal coding style/preference.
Cairngorm, and when I can't use Cairngorm (say, when using Flash CS3), I will simulate it (and it is really easy to duplicate conceptually). It is easy to set up, stupid simple, lightweight, and fast. If done correctly, it also forces a VERY clear separation of form and content. It fits in brilliantly with the native Flex classes and exploints data binding to the fullest. Of course, this might have something to do with the fact that it is the standard which Adobe explicitly endorses. Further, it is by far the most popular, which means if you need other people to be brought in and work on your projects, it will be far easier to find people who know Cairngorm than people who know the alternatives.
I find PureMVC incredibly bloated, non-ActionScript intuitive, and generally useless unless you work in a 99% Java company that does a very small amount of work with Flex and you want to have both use the same system.
I don't know anything about the rest.
I currently do a lot of work in ActionScript 3.0, I also love to program in Java. Is JavaFX perfect for me? What is the general feeling on JavaFX, will it become a power house, or go down the same path as Java Applets? Could the designers I work with become comfortable with JavaFX to the same extent they are comfortable with ActionScript and JavaScript?
Just wanted to add my $.02... I've been working in JavaFX for the last 4 days on my first little side-project using it. As some background, I've been programming professionally for about 9 years, starting with C, and have been doing Java and C#/.NET for the last 6 yrs.
IMO, JavaFX its way more frustrating that it should be. Here are some gripes:
The syntax is just odd at times. It could easily be more like Java, since its JavaFX. But the syntax isn't an easy transition from Java.
The order of items in a .fx file actually matters, which means you run into stupid circular reference errors, and "oh you can't use this variable yet because it hasn't been initialized" problems that the compiler should handle with ease, but doesn't.
Random things just don't work. Actions/events on Swing controls don't always work, for example SwingSliderBar's onKeyPressed/released don't seem to be called.
Error handling is just bad. If an exception occurs that isn't handled, there is no real way to tell other than the Java console, and UI elements start to react funny. For example, make a SwingText box and bind its value to a variable. Now trying to edit the value in the text box will throw an exception because you cant edit the bound variable. However in the UI, the text box just starts having funny things happen. some characters only 1/2 paint, sometimes backspace does nothing, sometimes it deletes a character, sometimes you can press 2 keys ont eh keyboard like "1" and "2" and the text box will end up having "21" entered in it instead of "12", etc...
Although my absolute #1 problem with JavaFX development right now is Netbeans. It is pathetically bad at JFX. Can't debug, errors display wrong in the IDE (I've had it flag comments as errors!), the intellisence only works like 40% of the time, event he code templates preprogrammed in the IDE for drag & dropping controls aren't correct. I forget which one, but one of them drops a "&" at the end of the inserted code that is never valid and always has to be manually deleted... its just plain awful, and is unacceptable for a company like Sun.
Another gripe is general documentation. Its just lacking. Somehow the JavaFX API doesn't even come up as the #1 search result on google when searching for methods/classes. Tons of "examples" out on the web don't work any more as every version has major refactoring changes, and classes removed or renamed.
Overall, I give JFX a 4 out of 10. I want to like it, but JFX 1.1 just doesn't cut it... its definitely not what I would consider "production ready".
A resounding "meh".
When I looked at it a year ago, they had a one-way SVG to JavaFx conversion tool. Great, so you can author your visual content once, mark it up with a lot of behaviour, and then the next time you want to make it look good, then what?
If you take a look at this tutorial you can see what I mean. We're drawing stuff by dragging shapes from a palette into source code. OMGWTF. I am not showing that to my graphics department.
I hope I'm wrong about JavaFx, but I don't think they get it. Please, won't somebody at Sun give us a presentation layer that doesn't have its tentacles inextricably intertwined with code?
I left my last job to move from Java to .NET development.
There were a number of reasons for making the move, but the single biggest reason was that I was sick and tired of trying to build 1st class UI software with Java & Swing. It has been six years and I'm so glad I moved on. I see no reason to believe that Sun finally understands UI development with JavaFX.
I am convinced that Microsoft is finally in the process of giving us a platform to build rich interactive applications in the browser. I say that after having built commercially available software which was delivered as a Netscape Plugin 13 years ago, followed by ActiveX controls and Java Applets, and seeing all of these platforms fail to become ubiquitous in the enterprise for one reason or another.
I realize that Silverlight 2 is still lacking in depth and maturity, but Microsoft has shown me enough commitment at this point that I believe it will be the dominant RIA platform in a few short years - at least for projects which require a "real" programming language. I am sure Flash et al. is not going away anytime soon, but Flash is not appropriate for the kinds of software my company builds.
The icing on the cake for me is the fact that I will still be able to use Visual Studio, C# and a large percentage of my current code base (the core engine which is entirely separate from the UI). Of course, if you are coming from ActionScript, this would not help you.
One more important point is the fact that Silverlight and WPF share so much in common. Our plan is to share a large amount of implementation between Silverlight and WPF versions of our software. It is only a matter of time before WPF is the standard for Windows applications – I don’t know whether that is a couple of years or ten years, but it will clearly happen over time. Being able to target the most popular browsers / OS’s with Silverlight and Windows from the same code base is a tremendous advantage IMO.
If you know Java then moving to C# is a piece of cake. And unless you are using one of the nice (not free) Java IDEs, then even the free versions of Visual Studio will be an improvement over what you are used to. The hurdle will be learning the new way of doing things with XAML – but it’s some pretty cool stuff so you might actually enjoy it.
Although it appears fairly powerful in terms of capabilities, I'm kinda blah about JavaFX because of its structure and implementation. It seems like a really half-hearted attempt at getting into the Flash/Silverlight market. Too scripty.
I would argue in favor of going the Silverlight 2 route, but I'm primarily a C# developer so I'm a little biased there. If you don't like that route for whatever reason but still want a richer UX for your users, I'd suggest Flex; it seems much better organized than JavaFX to me.
Just my two cents on the subject.
If you know Java but want to do the stuff you thought was only feasible in Flash - then yes JavaFX would be good for you.
Without a doubt it's going to be much more easier to merge your Java knowledge with the design stuff.
And I believe the tooling will only get better which will make it simpler to use.
Unless you’re working on an internal app I would stay away from it. Users generally don’t want to have to deal with another program that accomplishes the same thing as Flash. I don’t think its install base is large enough yet to make it convenient for end users.
I've been developing Flash Applications with Flex for about 2 years now and I decided to give a try to JavaFX because we are constantly getting user complains that they cant use the applications from their IPhones (and I love Java).
That's one strike for Flash (no wide mobile support).
To be honest I was quite impressed with JavaFX (in a very bad way).
The documentation is incomplete.
The script is simply awful; its this weird hybrid between JSON and R with a feeling of a Java-deja-vu.
I spent the first 3 days painting polygons and making gradients with CODE... WTF!!
I tried to convince my graphic department to try it and they simply don't seam to grasp how the production suite is supposed to work, they keep complaining that Flex skinning is way easy and looks better in the end (Which is absolutely true).
The "CSS support" is simply a bad joke.
It generally feels like a mediocre attempt to offer an option for RIA frontend.
I can only think of a couple of good things about it:
It can be run from an IPhone / IPad and almost all mobile devices.
You have access to all the Java code you want which is great considering the limitations that ActionScript has (no overloading, no private constructors, etc). This is a great thing for us the programmers, but lets remember for a second that this is a frontend/presentation technology... that means that users will have to actually see the thing, so if it doesn't look good and have cool animations / effects they wont dig it.
The Script is way less verbose that MXML files are (with the cost of being unintelligible).
Talking about performance... Flash Player is this huge green blob that keeps growing and growing until no RAM is left compared to how JavaFX runs (JVM rocks! unfortunately this has nothing to do with the actual JavaFX API its just that the JVM... well it rocks!).
It has this cool feature where you can drag the applet outside the Web Browser.
In the end, Im happy I have an option to go mobile but this is light years way of the matureness that Flex/Flash has accomplished regarding RIA applications. The future of Flex/Flash as a wide distributed web technology is not clear (it may end up being used only for annoying banners and online games), no one wants to depend in a close technology as the Flash Player is, that's why the whole Web community is striving to get Flash out of the picture (HTML5 video support, No Flash Player for Apple devices, etc). So an attempt to have an open one is always welcomed, it's just that JavaFX feels like this incomplete rushed beta version of something that Sun felt obligated to come up with in a weekend during a bad hangover.
I Hope this is useful to someone (and offensive to someone at Sun/Oracle =p ).
I've spent the weekend 'playing with it. I see nothing useful in it. It's a iteration of swing / awt. I guess it will be nice for mobile devices but beyond that its nothing useful.
Ideally I'd like to use flash but find it painful to intergrate with a backend of any type.
Well, the syntax of both ActionScript and JavaFX seem to share a lot of similarities, so maybe "Yes".
I'm learning JavaFX script at the moment and I actually like it. But what I don't like, and is maybe it's biggest drawback, is it's awful documentation, which is often not up to date or incomplete.
I've been working on a JavaFX application for several months now. Personally, I love the language. They seemed to me to have made some very smart decisions in choosing the syntax and language constructs (I can bore you with a list if you'd like). I've been programming in it for a few months now and it seems like a very efficient and even enjoyable language to program in.
I think its best use right now is for desktop applications and/or applications deployed through webstart. On the desktop it has a rich set of features and can still make use of the other features of Swing and the rest of Java. From what I hear applets are still slow on some systems, and without Android support the mobile capabilities are non-features. The applet/mobile/TV/web support seems to me more like a bonus for desktop developers then as key features that would get you to use the technology.
So it really all depends on what you plan to use it for. If you are building desktop applications that you want to run on the Java VM that can make use of easy multimedia and rich ui controls, then I think there are good reasons to look at the language. WebStart has improved quite a bit and makes for a nice deployment tool. If you are looking to build web applications, then it might be interesting, but for now I'd say HTML5/ajax are more relevant (you might want to look at ZK in this case). However even with HTML5 ajax has its limitations, and if you find yourself running into them then JavaFX may offer you options. For mobile platforms it won't be relevant until there is stable Android support - in that case I'd just stick with the Android platform itself for now.