+1
Gerrit
Am 03.06.2013 um 20:26 schrieb David Grieve <david.gri...@oracle.com>:
> I would rather see the deriveFont methods, but not as factory methods.
>
> public Font deriveFont(double size)
> public Font deriveFont(String family)
>
> The subtle difference being that these wouldn't use "default" sizes or family
> names but would use whatever the font is to find the closest matching font.
> If there isn't a close match, then the same font would be returned.
>
> e.g.,
> text.setFont(Font.getDefault().deriveFont(18));
> and
> Font myFont = new Font("Verdana", 18);
> text.setFont(myFont.deriveFont("Comic Sans MS");
>
> On Jun 3, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Felipe Heidrich <felipe.heidr...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Moving API discussion to the mailing:
>>
>> Proposal:
>> Add:
>> Font#font(float) - creates new font using default font family name
>> and given font size
>> Font#font(String) - creates new font using given font family and
>> default font size
>>
>>
>> Comments:
>> Phil Wrote
>>> I keep having to type this:
>>> text.setFont(Font.font(Font.getDefault().getFamily(), 81));
>>> I would prefer just:
>>> text.setFont(Font.font(81));
>>> which would use the default font.
>>
>> I think that last line was meant to be "default font family".
>> All the font(..) factory methods are family based and we should
>> keep it that way.
>> So the new API Font.font(-81) as specified and implemented here
>> is using the default family but its not necessarily getting the same
>> style as the default font. Nor would it inherit any other (theoretical)
>> attributes of the default font. In practice it'll all work out
>> the same until the day that some platform has a bold default font
>> or has something else different about the default font that can't
>> be communicated solely through family.
>> So some day we also need to add Font.deriveFont(..).
>>
>> Felipe wrote:
>> Right, the problem you pointed out would be better solved using the derive
>> pattern:
>>
>> Font.getDefault().deriveFont(newSize);
>>
>> That said, the two new methods don't exclude the option of adding derive in
>> the future.
>> They are consistent with the javadoc, other factory methods, and probably
>> good enough to make Richard happy for now.
>>
>> Anyway, I will let him be the judge for that.
>>
>> Personally I would go with the 2 new methods for now and worried about
>> derive in the future (at which time we can consider the implication of
>> different style options such as stretch and advance typographic features).
>>
>>
>>
>> Felipe
>
