This thread is very long and despite trying I am sure I have not
absorbed every discussion point to date.
I think a concise summary of the current opinions from Semyon would help as
I don't yet see a concensus emerging and if we are adding a new public
API we need to be sure that
1) It is
Hi Sergey,
On 24/10/2017 00:22, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 17/10/2017 09:42, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
This is my understanding, before those fix the maximum size was 32x32.
It is my understanding too. Thus limiting the size of icon to 128
pixels seemed reasonable.
At this moment the buffer for
On 17/10/2017 09:42, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
This is my understanding, before those fix the maximum size was 32x32.
It is my understanding too. Thus limiting the size of icon to 128 pixels
seemed reasonable.
At this moment the buffer for icon pixels is allocated on the stack,
therefore the
Hi Semyon,
On 06/10/2017 21:33, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 10/06/2017 11:42 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon, Sergey,
On 30/09/2017 00:08, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/29/2017 3:15 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell
Hi Sergey, Semyon,
On 12/10/2017 21:39, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 06/10/2017 17:16, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
The maximum icon which we used before you fix is 32pixel's icon(yes
it is a large icon), and 128 is a size of this icon on 4k monitor(
The windows can return a 128pixel's icon on 4k
On 06/10/2017 17:16, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
The maximum icon which we used before you fix is 32pixel's icon(yes it
is a large icon), and 128 is a size of this icon on 4k monitor( The
windows can return a 128pixel's icon on 4k monitor) The EXTRA_LARGE
and JAMBO was not used in our code.
So, it
On 10/06/2017 03:57 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 13:50, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
This is not true because in addition to LARGE which you probably mean
as 32-128 (ignoring the fact that this sizes may be changed in the
Windows registry), Windows supports EXTRA_LARGE and JAMBO since
On 10/6/17 13:50, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
This is not true because in addition to LARGE which you probably mean as
32-128 (ignoring the fact that this sizes may be changed in the Windows
registry), Windows supports EXTRA_LARGE and JAMBO since Vista.
The maximum icon which we used before you
On 10/06/2017 01:16 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 13:01, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 10/06/2017 12:38 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 09:53, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
Hi Alexey,
On 10/06/2017 11:42 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon, Sergey,
On 30/09/2017 00:08, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/29/2017 3:15 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for example
On 10/6/17 13:01, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 10/06/2017 12:38 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 09:53, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-March/010777.html
I
On 10/06/2017 12:38 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 09:53, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-March/010777.html
I see. And it can be changed, if deemed
Hi Sergey,
On 06/10/2017 20:38, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 10/6/17 09:53, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-March/010777.html
I see. And it can be changed, if deemed
On 10/6/17 09:53, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/2016-March/010777.html
I see. And it can be changed, if deemed necessary, can't it?
Yes we can.
As far as I
Hi Sergey,
On 29/09/2017 22:06, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 07:11, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
If I understand correctly, the introduction of the new API does not
change the behaviour in this case, does it?
The icon extracted from Windows was 16×16 and will continue to be used.
That is the
Hi Semyon, Sergey,
On 30/09/2017 00:08, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/29/2017 3:15 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for example there are 256×256 icons for folders and
generic file type.
Hi Semyon,
On 29/09/2017 20:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/29/2017 12:29 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 07:34, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Ok, so it means that we will support 1-128 pixels
natively(MAX_ICON_SIZE) and others via MRI.
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up
Hi Sergey,
Sorry for a long delay…
On 29/09/2017 20:29, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 07:34, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Ok, so it means that we will support 1-128 pixels
natively(MAX_ICON_SIZE) and others via MRI.
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for
On 9/29/17 16:08, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 9/29/2017 3:15 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for example there are 256×256 icons for folders and generic
file type.
It is limitation of
On 9/29/2017 3:15 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for example there are 256×256 icons for folders and generic
file type.
It is limitation of our implementation:
On 9/29/17 12:39, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256
pixels, for example there are 256×256 icons for folders and generic
file type.
It is limitation of our implementation:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8151385
On 9/29/17 07:11, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
If I understand correctly, the introduction of the new API does not
change the behaviour in this case, does it?
The icon extracted from Windows was 16×16 and will continue to be used.
That is the icon will be scaled when painted.
To support HiDPI
On 9/29/17 07:34, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Ok, so it means that we will support 1-128 pixels
natively(MAX_ICON_SIZE) and others via MRI.
Why 128 pixels? Windows shell usually provides icons up to 256 pixels,
for example there are 256×256 icons for folders and generic file type.
It is limitation
Hi Sergey,
On 25/09/2017 21:44, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/22/17 04:22, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
There's no way of knowing in advance.
Explorer does not restrict the size of icons (now), it's up to
developers of a particular file handler to provide icons. Usually,
there's only one icon with
Hi Sergey and Semyon,
On 28/09/2017 19:49, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/28/17 10:57, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Small and large don't have any special meanings for HiDPI. They are
some conditional sizes established by the native platform for the
current screen resolution.
The question what is
On 9/28/17 10:57, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Small and large don't have any special meanings for HiDPI. They are
some conditional sizes established by the native platform for the
current screen resolution.
The question what is the current screens resolution when you have two
screens?
We should
We definitely can't backport an API change.
Reading the bug report it seems they have been doing this by using
internal APIs.
For JDK 9, since illegal-access is allowed by default, they can continue
to do that,
so perhaps we can just not worry about the backport and solve this only
for 10 +
On 9/28/2017 10:51 AM, Philip Race wrote:
If this is up for consideration for backporting - as appears to be the
case - then
I think you should post an updated webrev.
Not sure that we can backport it because this would change the API.
--Semyon
-phil.
Hi Sergey,
On 9/27/2017 12:22 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/26/17 14:37, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
This means that on HiDPI screen the FILE_ICON_LARGE works in similar
way as FILE_ICON_SMALL on non-HiDPI screen, and the meaning of the
FILE_ICON_SMALL on HiDPI is unclear, because it is half of
If this is up for consideration for backporting - as appears to be the
case - then
I think you should post an updated webrev.
-phil.
On 9/28/17, 10:41 AM, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 9/28/2017 7:28 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
Ok, but both represent
Sure!
--
Alexey
On 28/09/2017 18:41, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 9/28/2017 7:28 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
Ok, but both represent the null pointer in Win32.
Yes, I know. Yet NULL makes it clear that it's a null-pointer rather
than an index, size…
Hi Alexey,
On 9/28/2017 7:28 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
Ok, but both represent the null pointer in Win32.
Yes, I know. Yet NULL makes it clear that it's a null-pointer rather
than an index, size…
It's still zero in the latest review.
Agh... I will fix it
Hi Semyon,
On 26/09/2017 21:58, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 9/26/2017 12:29 PM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
ShellFolder2.cpp
944 pIcon->Extract(szBuf, index, , *0*, sz);
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
Ok, but both represent the null pointer in Win32.
Yes, I know. Yet NULL
On 9/26/17 14:37, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
This means that on HiDPI screen the FILE_ICON_LARGE works in similar
way as FILE_ICON_SMALL on non-HiDPI screen, and the meaning of the
FILE_ICON_SMALL on HiDPI is unclear, because it is half of the correct
size.
Small and large don't have any special
Hi Sergey,
On 9/25/2017 1:44 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/22/17 04:22, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
There's no way of knowing in advance.
Explorer does not restrict the size of icons (now), it's up to
developers of a particular file handler to provide icons. Usually,
there's only one icon with
Hi Alexey,
On 9/26/2017 12:29 PM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
ShellFolder2.cpp
944 pIcon->Extract(szBuf, index, , *0*, sz);
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
Ok, but both represent the null pointer in Win32.
The result of the call is ignored now. Is it intentional?
Yes, it has been
Hi Semyon,
ShellFolder2.cpp
944 pIcon->Extract(szBuf, index, , *0*, sz);
I think 0 should really be |NULL|.
The result of the call is ignored now. Is it intentional?
Win32ShellFolder2.java
1010 private static Image makeIcon(long hIcon, int bsize) {
|bsize| was called |baseSize| previously,
On 9/22/17 04:22, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
There's no way of knowing in advance.
Explorer does not restrict the size of icons (now), it's up to
developers of a particular file handler to provide icons. Usually,
there's only one icon with size larger than 255.
If there's the icon of the requested
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 01:01 PM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 20:06, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 10:53 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 18:29, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 20:06, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 10:53 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 18:29, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 17:13, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 10:53 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 18:29, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 17:13, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your exact clarification.
On 09/22/2017
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 18:29, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 17:13, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your exact clarification.
On 09/22/2017 04:22 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
As for FILE_ICON_SMALL
Hi Alexey,
On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 17:13, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your exact clarification.
On 09/22/2017 04:22 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
As for FILE_ICON_SMALL and FILE_ICON_LARGE, I'd suggest using
Windows API to
Hi Semyon,
On 22/09/2017 17:13, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your exact clarification.
On 09/22/2017 04:22 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
As for FILE_ICON_SMALL and FILE_ICON_LARGE, I'd suggest using Windows
API to retrieve the recommended size for small and large icon size
Hi Alexey,
Thank you for your exact clarification.
On 09/22/2017 04:22 AM, Alexey Ivanov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On 22/09/2017 04:21, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 14:12, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/21/2017 01:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 08:54, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On
Hi Sergey,
On 22/09/2017 04:21, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 14:12, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/21/2017 01:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 08:54, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/20/2017 02:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on
On 9/21/17 14:12, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/21/2017 01:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 08:54, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/20/2017 02:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on the two bugs:
JDK-8182043 and JDK-8156183.
On 09/21/2017 01:52 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 9/21/17 08:54, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/20/2017 02:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on the two bugs:
JDK-8182043 and JDK-8156183.
getSystemIcon(File file, int size):
- How the
On 9/21/17 08:54, Semyon Sadetsky wrote:
On 09/20/2017 02:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on the two bugs:
JDK-8182043 and JDK-8156183.
getSystemIcon(File file, int size):
- How the user will know what values/sizes should be passed,
On 09/20/2017 02:41 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on the two bugs:
JDK-8182043 and JDK-8156183.
getSystemIcon(File file, int size):
- How the user will know what values/sizes should be passed, what
values are supported? It is unlikely
Hi, Semyon
I have some initial comments which are based on the two bugs:
JDK-8182043 and JDK-8156183.
getSystemIcon(File file, int size):
- How the user will know what values/sizes should be passed, what
values are supported? It is unlikely that he will pass all values in
between 8-256?
Hello,
Please review fix for JDK10 (the changes involve AWT and Swing):
bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182043
webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssadetsky/8182043/webrev.00/
The fix opens the part of the ShellFolder API for getting system icons
which was decided to be left
52 matches
Mail list logo
