Attached is the most recent wtkx file I have been testing with.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:39:12 pm Greg Brown wrote:
> This is actually almost identical to how it used to work before I
> renamed the property to minimumPreferredAspectRatio, so I guess it
> probably makes sense to revert that.
>
> However, due to a caching issue, you still won't quite be able to
> achieve what you are trying to do. We currently cache the values of
> the preferred size calculations for performance reasons. So, the
> widest component doesn't get scaled up (nor do any other components
> that report the same preferred width). I have a fix in mind, but I
> want to give it some thought before committing it. I'll make the
> changes to TerraPushButtonSkin, anyways and the cache fix will come
> later.
>
> On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
> > From what I can see the way the current aspect ratio is calculated
> > and then
> > used is biased towards an increase in width. In that context I can
> > see why you
> > call it a minimum aspect ratio.
> >
> > To make what I want work I need the bias to be for the height to
> > increase so
> > that really the aspect ratio is a maximum. So what I have done is to
> > say that
> > if the aspect ratio is +ve then the current behaviour applies but if
> > it is -ve
> > then the aspect ratio is a maximum and the height needs to be
> > increased. Using
> > a negative number has just been a simple way of getting a result
> > without
> > having to change to much code.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > In getPreferredWidth() nothing changes.
> >
> > In getPrefereedHeight() the calculation using aspect ratio is:
> >
> > // Adjust for preferred aspect ratio
> > if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
> > && minimumPreferredAspectRatio < 0.0
> > && (float)width / (float)preferredHeight > -
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
> > preferredHeight = (int)(width / -
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
> > }
> >
> > In getPreferredSize() it is:
> >
> > // Adjust for preferred aspect ratio
> > if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
> > && (float)preferredWidth / (float)preferredHeight <
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
> > preferredWidth = (int)(preferredHeight *
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
> > }
> > else if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
> > && minimumPreferredAspectRatio < 0.0
> > && (float)preferredWidth / (float)preferredHeight > -
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
> > preferredHeight = (int)(preferredWidth / -
> > minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
> > }
> >
> > ---
> >
> > The height not being changed when the aspect ratio is +ve doesn't
> > appear to
> > affect either of our use cases. I can't think what affect this will
> > have in
> > general.
> >
> > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:04:26 am Greg Brown wrote:
> >> OK. How about a high-level description of the change?
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
> >>> I'll give it a go but I will need to change what I have done. It is
> >>> not
> >>> suitable to submit as a patch.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:38:34 pm Greg Brown wrote:
> >>>> It is worth considering. Can you provide a patch that implements
> >>>> your
> >>>> proposed solution so we can take a look?
applicationUi.xml
Description: XML document
