looks fine. On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 06:12, Frederic Crozat wrote: > First, sorry for the wrong mailing list :(( > > Cc: evo-patches.. > > Le mer 08/10/2003 � 01:56, Not Zed a �crit : > > On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 01:24, Frederic Crozat wrote: > > > The attached patch make evolution uses > > > gnome_thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf instead of gdk_pixbuf_scale_simplified > > > if it is available (ie on GNOME platform >= 2.2), which fixes big > > > performance problem when it tries to scale down big images (see bug > > > http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6065 ). It also seems mini > > > pixbuf is re-computed when switching from open to close for inline > > > attachement (I didn't fix this problem). > > Hmm, they should be cached, in 1.4 anyway, head doesn't from memory. > > Well, my patch is for 1.4 and I can see it isn't cached at all when > pressing the arrow attachement button.. > > I did some checks and pbl->cid changes each time message is reloaded and > when you press arrow attachement button, therefore cache purpose is > defeated :( > > > > This is a known problem in gdk_pixbuf_scale (which can be workarounded > > > by using gdk_pixbuf_loader_set_size, only with GTK+ 2.2). > > If you need gtk+ 2.2 for it, shouldn't it just use that directly? And > > what happens if you use that on pre 2.2 versions, i.e. does it have a > > detrimental affect, or is it just effectively ignored. > > Ok, I wasn't clear enough : > > to fix the scaling performance on very big images to do thumbnails, you > can either : > -use gnome-thumbnail_scale_down_pixbuf which is in libgnomeui >= 2.2 (I > could also copy/paste the function code which is only using gdk-pixbuf > 2.0 code), which can be up to 100x faster than gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple > in these cases. So we only need gtk+ 2.0 in this case. > -use gdk_pixbuf_loader_set_size call, which was introduced in gtk+ 2.2 > and will require more changes in the code, since loader is used for > loading both full size and thumbnail image. > > > > Can I commit this to CVS (both branches, I guess) ? > > > > This codepath is completely different in head, tho i guess the same > > issue will arise. > > Well, I must confess I didn't look at HEAD yet :) > > > FWIW i tested the test message on the bug, and i didn't see what i > > would've considered any more delay than i'd expect for such a large > > image - 1/2 to 1 second was all to build the thumbnail. > > Well, you must have a very fast system or with a lot of memory (I'm not > sure which factor is the most important) : > on my test system (PIII/450) , it takes : > -1min25s to render thumbnail with gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple > -2s with gnome_thumbnail_scale_pixbuf > > I think we have a winner here :) > > > As for the patch, what defines GNOME_THUMBNAIL_H? Isn't it ... > > gnome-thumbnail.h? > > Hmm, I should have tested my patch better :)) > > I've fixed this in the new attached patch.. -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com
_______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
