I found it: The problem is in the way combined images are subjected to
#asset hints. They have to be included :-\ .

So, for the time being you have to #asset them, either by a wild card
that includes them (e.g. #asset(infodesk/*)), or explicitly:

#asset(infodesk/flag-combined.png)
#asset(infodesk/icon/icon16-combined.png)
#asset(infodesk/icon/icon32-combined.png)

Then it works as expected. I consider this a bug, and have opened a
report for it (bug#3649).

Sorry for the hassle.
T.


On 04/28/2010 09:39 AM, Peter Schneider wrote:
>> On 04/27/2010 05:51 PM, Peter Schneider wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I'm currently trying to combine some images with the help of the generator
>>> using the documentation on [1] & [2].
>>> The combining itself seems to work (the combined images and the "meta"-files
>>> get created), but the application doesn't care about this.
>>
>> You did re-run 'generate.py source/build' after creating the combined
>> images, did you?!
> 
> Yes I did.
> And by the way, my "config.json" is located where the "image.json" is located
> (see attached zip in my previous post).
> 
> 
>>> What do I have to do to let the application load the combined image instead 
>>> of
>>> the "original" files, Or does this only work for "themed" widgets?
>>
>> Nothing, and no.
> 
> That was what I'd expected ;)
> 
> 
>>> For an overview (hopefully ;) ) here's my process/problem:
>>>
>>> 1. I'd like to combine groups of my Toolbar Icons into one image.
>>>    (in my case: one for 32x32 sized icons, one for 16x16 sized icons and one
>>>    for some flags)
>>>
>>> 2. I made a configuration (see attachment "image.json") according to [1]...
>>>
>>> 3. I ran "generate -c image.json image-combine" and that did what I expected
>>>    (the combined files and the meta-files looking good, from what I can say)
>>>    [Side-note: the command line snippets on [1] use "./generator" instead of
>>>     "./generate" ...small issue ;) ]
>>
>> Thanks. Fixed in 1.1 manual.
> 
> Should also be fixed in 1.0 manual, shouldn't it?
> 
> 
>>> 4. But the application (neither the 'build' nor the 'source' version) does 
>>> not
>>>    even contain any reference to any of those combined images...
>>
>> So what is the observed behaviour? Is your app using the individual
>> images alright? Which browser do you test with?
> 
> The application ('source'- and 'build'-version) works perfectly with 
> individual
> images.
> I do my tests with FF 3.6.3 (+firebug) on Windows XP.
> The combined images of the framework do work (e.g. "arrows-combined.png" is
> loaded), so I don't think it's a Browser/OS issue.
> 
> As I mentioned, the generated application scripts do not contain anything like
> "infodesk/flag-combined.png"...
> 
> My guess is, that there's a misconfiguration at the paths
> 
> 
>>> 5. All images have been noted in the "#asset"s, but they are not directly 
>>> used
>>>    in any image-constructor. So there's no line like this
>>>    <code>
>>>      var foo = new qx.ui.toolbar.Button("foo",
>>>                                         "infodesk/icon/32/preferences.png");
>>>    </code>
>>>    I'm using a 'indirection' like this:
>>>    <code>
>>>      var foo_config = {txt:"foo", ico:"infodesk/icon/32/preferences.png");
>>>      var foo = new qx.ui.toolbar.Button(foo_config.txt, foo_config.ico);
>>>    </code>
>>>    But I don't think _this_ is the problem...
>>
>> If it works without combined images, it should continue to work with them.
> 
> That's what I'd expected ;)
> 
> The application just doesn't contain any reference to my combined images in 
> the
> qx.$$resources = {...} section, just the  individual images are noted there.
> I would have expected:
>  <code>
>  qx.$$resources =
> {...,"infodesk/flag_client.png":[21,13,"png","infodesk","infodesk/flag-combined.png",0,-13],...}
>  </code>
> 
> but the generated script just has this:
>  <code>
>  qx.$$resources = 
> {...,"infodesk/flag_client.png":[21,13,"png","infodesk"],...}
>  </code>
> 
> So again, I believe I  did not get the thing with "prefix" and/or "files" 
> right
> in my image.json file.
> 
> Do the "meta" files look O.K. for you? I think they do, but you're the expert
> on that :D
> 
> 
>> T.
> 
> Peter
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> qooxdoo-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
qooxdoo-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel

Reply via email to