On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Nick Bailey wrote:
> We are having trouble with our "fonts". They are not real fonts: they
> are images created by a memory image source which was created by reading
> a TeX pk file. The fonts are read from the pk file to generate a pixel
> map with one-bit-per-pixel. We want to write these images on the screen
> using a colour model with 1 bit per pixel, i.e. fg (usually black) and
> transparent. The "character" will be written on top of the musical
> staff, so we need transparency, whether by real transparency or by
> setting some writing mode to OR...
My suggestion is that if 2bpp is broken, you might as well go for 8bpp.
Aside from memory considerations, why not just convert your fonts into
gif's and paint them as Image objects? Much simpler that way.
Having said that, the Java2D features in 1.2 provide much more
sophisticated drawing capabilities that you may want to look into.
In any case here are my off-the-cuff observations to your questions:
> ?1. Kaffe is open, so it is inherently the better route, even if it is
> behind on the 1.2 compatibility
It is only PersonalJava compatible. It's behind on 1.1 even. It's not
really useable at the moment for any kind of serious graphics work.
1.2 has some graphics performance problems due to Swing & X, but Java2D
makes up for a lot of it.
> ?2. Sound and MIDI isn't there yet, even in so far as it's in the 1.2
> spec. We might as well code with JNI and go native.
AFAIK sound works, no idea about MIDI. On Linux you could probably open
up the proper /dev/midi file and write to it directly, although I couldn't
say anything about the performance. You could also write or use a native
sound server and connect to it through a socket.
Sound support on Linux on the other hand is a different issue =p
> ?3. Java2d on 1.1 isn't any different from Java2d on 1.2
1.1 doesn't have Java2D.
> ?4. The Kaffe AWT had more bugs that the Sun one, and should be
> avoided.
For now, yes.
> ?5. Use <insert favourite class library set>: it's better than <insert
> most hated class library set>
Use Swing if you can afford the performance hit & memory requirements,
it's better than plain AWT.
> ?6. Sun is the authoratitive reference, so if there are bugs in it, you
> better code around them rather than expect anybody else to use your
> minority stuff.
If you want to ship a working product, JDK 1.1.7 is really your only
realistic choice for the next six months or so.
> ?7. Stop whinging and fix the sun bugs!
Well we try when we can and when we have access to the source =0
-----
In general I'd say if you're deploying on good workstations with generous
amounts of memory (> 32 mb) you would be well off using Java + Swing.
In my experience with a lot of graphic libraries using C, C++, and Java,
Java's lets you be more productive.
If you're not going to be deploying for another six months, I'd bite the
bullet and start working with JDK 1.2 if you need Java2D. From my
impression, if you're going to be doing sophisticated rendering, you might
as well.
Let us know how things work out, I'd be really interested myself in a
musical application =)
. . . Sean.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
