On 5/22/14 5:58 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
On 22.05.2014 15:36, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 5/22/14 11:47 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On 22.05.2014 1:44, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 5/21/14 10:13 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
The original fix provides some updates and clarifications to the
javadoc for the LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() method, but
they are missing from your fix. Is this intentional?
Nope. I just missed this update. I looked at this method closely
and got a question: do we need this scale parameter? Why we cannot
use w,h + scanstride here an skip all clarification about logical
coordinates?
Originally, Jim suggested to generalize the API:
<<Rather than imply any parameters, I think specifying a very exact
set of parameters gives the most flexibility. Even if the
relationships you characterize above are true, xywh,scan or
off,wh,scan both provide the flexibility to supply the data in those
formats without the client having to guess dimensions or scan size.
Any API that specifies an array containing data should always
provide the flexibility of specifying an offset (and x,y is a way of
specifying an offset for rectangular data and using a nio Buffer can
implicitly imply an offset based on its position) and when that data
is a rectangle of data then it should also supply independent w,h
and scan strides. If the offset is always 0, and if the scanstride
is always w in the implementation's that choose the data storage
then it may seem like overkill, but it provides the flexibility of
switching to a more sophisticated buffer re-use strategy later
without having to track down every client and update them... >>
and so we provide all the coordinates.
I understand why we need x/y/w/h/scanstride but why we need scale,
because our buffer is pixel based anyway? In this case we have to
convert w/h/x/y/scanstride from logical to pixels and back.
The reasoning for that if the following. On the client side
(SwingNode), during the rendering of the image, there's a need to have
logical bounds of the image. So, this would require conversion
(devision) for what the client would need to know the scale factor
for what it would need to ask for it, separately. This would bring
another code path & dependencies (for instance, b/w SwingNode and its
prism peer). Currently, there's only one parameter of a method for
that purpose.
Ok. Here is an updated version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.02
Thanks,
Anton.
Thanks,
Anton.
BTW, I've applied your fix and tested it with the latest version
of FX changes, and everything works smoothly on my Mac, including
the display change listener.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 5/21/2014 7:46 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello, Everybody.
Please review an updated version of this fix. This is a minimum
possible
fix. changes in shared code of jdk are minimized and can be
enhanced in
the future.
The fix is covering hdpi support in SwingNode on osx + system
look and
feel(Aqua).
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.01
Notes:
- This fix depends from two other fixes: JDK- 8041129 and
JDK-8041644.
Both are under review on 2d alias.
On 5/13/14 9:29 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Jim, Sergey, and Anton,
I'd like to revive this old thread and finally push this fix, which
has been reviewed and approved on this mailing list back in
February.
The only additional change that I want to introduce, is the
addition
of default implementations for the
LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() methods. This allows
clients of
the API (namely, JavaFX) to run with both the old and the new
JDK w/o
any changes or side-effects. Here's the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anthony/9-2-hiDPISwingNode-8029455.0/
It literally only adds the default methods and doesn't make any
other
changes to the rest of the already reviewed code. I've tested
this on
both hiDPI and loDPI displays, with both old and hiDPI-aware JavaFX
builds, and it works fine in all the cases.
The current plan is to push this fix to JDK 9, and then
back-port the
changes to 8u20.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 2/21/2014 2:47 AM, Jim Graham wrote:
Yes, approved.
...jim
On 2/17/14 6:09 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Jim, so this is ready for a push then.
Thanks!
Anton.
On 15.02.2014 5:01, Jim Graham wrote:
I don't need to see an update for that. I didn't read the
entire
webrev, but I looked at this one piece of code and if that
was the
only thing changed then I think that dealt with the outstanding
issues...
...jim
On 2/13/14 11:12 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
On 14.02.2014 2:52, Jim Graham wrote:
On 2/13/14 5:03 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Jim,
Please, look at the update:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ant/JDK-8029455/webrev.5
Here I'm correcting the rect after the transform in SG2D:
2123 // In case of negative scale transform,
reflect the
rect
coords.
2124 if (w < 0) {
2125 w *= -1;
2126 x -= w;
2127 }
2128 if (h < 0) {
2129 h *= -1;
2130 y -= h;
2131 }
The blit direction (dx, dy) remains transformed. Is this
the right
behavior from your perspective?
Yes, that looks good. I wonder if the "w *= -1" results in a
multiply
byte code whereas "w = -w" would avoid the multiply?
...jim
Jim,
Yes, this indeed results in different byte code instructions
(imult &
ineg). Just for curiosity I did some measuring which showed
negatioation
worked 10% faster :)
Well, I'll fix it but let me please not send an update...
Thanks!
Anton.
--
Best regards, Sergey.
