Hi Roman,
the change looks mostly fine to me.
One thing - have you tested your change with the
headless toolkit?
Because it has its own GraphicsEnvironment class,
and it would appear that you'd need to set appropriate
SMF in there too.
Now what would that "appropriate SMF" be is a question.
I would suggest to return a BufImgVolatileSurfaceManager.
I don't remember if it is present in jdk7 tree, but if it's
not, it's just a simple subclass of VISM that returns
null from initAccelSurface() and false from isAccelerationEnabled().
Thanks,
Dmitri
Roman Kennke wrote:
Hello,
I'm implementing a Java2D backend based on Escher, which is already
working quite well (for a couple-of-hours-prototype):
http://kennke.org/blog/2008/02/25/escher-on-openjdk-graphics/
One issue I came over is the SurfaceManagerFactory. There seems to be
such a factory class both in the solaris and windows source trees, but
no way to provide an own implementation. Therefore I propose the
attached change. This basically turns the SurfaceManagerFactory into an
abstract class, now in the shared tree, with appropriate subclasses in
the windows and solaris trees. The GraphicsEnvironment implementations
are now responsible for initializing and setting the appropriate factory
in their static initializers. What do you think? I was thinking about a
different approach first, using yet another system property to determine
the right factory, but this seemed more natural.
Cheers, Roman
