Windows 7 WebView Text Rendering
Hello,
I am using Java 8u66 on Windows 7 and the text rendering in a WebView is
super blurry. For comparison purposes, I created a simple test that shows a
WebView displaying a paragraph and next to it a standard Label showing the
same paragraph.
http://imgur.com/36RYvf8
(Sorry I don't have a better place to upload the screenshot).
The page I am displaying is the following:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed sed
blandit magna, ut mattis ligula. Donec vestibulum
ut neque id condimentum. Cras blandit erat ac tincidunt bibendum. Nulla
dapibus arcu risus, at tincidunt leo
facilisis sit amet. Donec imperdiet lectus diam, nec egestas sapien
luctus nec. Praesent auctor ligula sed sem
dictum venenatis. Donec non dapibus turpis. Aliquam dictum euismod
sapien id bibendum. Quisque at accumsan eros.
Quisque eleifend maximus justo at tempor. Curabitur ut mi ut justo
auctor malesuada non at mi. Integer augue neque,
ultrices sit amet augue a, interdum ultricies nibh. Sed imperdiet diam
et eros maximus ultrices. Pellentesque
habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis
egestas.
The Java code I am using to create the WebView is:
WebView webView = new WebView();
webView.setPrefSize(410, 620);
webView.getEngine().load(getClass().getResource("/web/test.html").toExternalForm());
Essentially, a incredibly bare-bones example.
This text rendering happens on every page I have tried to load (e.g. actual
websites).
System info:
OS Name: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
OS Version:6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Build 7601
java version "1.8.0_66"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_66-b17)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.66-b17, mixed mode)
Although this is not a functionality breaking issue (e.g. not a
showstopper), it really is a serious issue in my eyes because of just how
qualities are of the rendered texts.
Thanks very much,
--
Michael Ennen
[9] review request: JDK-8147410 Crash with long selector list
Hi Alexander, kevin, Please review the fix for below issue : JIRA: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147410 Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mbilla/8147410/ Issue: This crash is webkit regression in 8u60 and fixed in JDK 9 version. Thanks, Murali
Re: [PATCH] Decrease Toolkit.firePulse allocation rate
How often are listeners added and removed? It might make more sense to
make them copy-on-write instead...?
...jim
On 1/14/16 4:52 AM, Doswald Michael wrote:
While profiling a JavaFX application that runs on embedded hardware, I have
found that the Toolkit.firePulse method creates more garbage than necessary. In
an application that simply animates an object without doing much else, I see
that the firePulse method allocates a fair amount of objects (compared to the
overall number of allocated objects). I have written a small patch that
decreases the allocation rate in said method. Since I'm not sure if such tweaks
are desired in the JavaFX codebase, I didn't open a JIRA issue. I'm happy to do
so if they are.
The following small application animates a single circle on screen. The
allocation rate of the 'JavaFX Application Thread' is as follows (measured with
jvisualvm):
openjfx 8u HEAD:~ 65 KB/s after start, ~ 49 KB/s after JIT compilation
kicked in
with patch:~ 25 KB/s, doesn't seem to change when JIT kicks
in
public class AllocateApp extends Application {
public static void main(String... args) {
Application.launch(args);
}
@Override
public void start(Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {
Circle circle = new Circle(10, 25, 10);
Timeline timeline = new Timeline(new KeyFrame(Duration.seconds(2), new
KeyValue(circle.centerXProperty(), 490)));
timeline.setCycleCount(Timeline.INDEFINITE);
timeline.setAutoReverse(true);
timeline.play();
primaryStage.setScene(new Scene(new Pane(circle), 500, 50));
primaryStage.show();
}
}
The patch below only creates a single List object instead of three WeakHashMaps
to make a local copy of the TKPulseListeners. It also uses the number of
listeners in the maps to estimate the size of the list. The patch uses
WeakReference objects in the list, which I doubt is necessary, but it emulates
the previous behaviour more accurately. I believe it would be possible to
change that to a strong reference for the following reasons:
a) The list is local and the strong references would only be there for the time
the firePulse method is run
b) The code would become more readable (less generics parameters, null-guard
not necessary in loop)
c) Getting rid of the WeakReference objects would decrease garbage generation
even more (down to ~ 21 KB/s)
Regards
Michael
diff -r f1c3eb85af4d
modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.java
--- a/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.javaFri Jan
08 08:11:51 2016 -0800
+++ b/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.javaWed Jan
13 10:43:27 2016 +0100
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
import javafx.scene.shape.StrokeType;
import javafx.stage.FileChooser.ExtensionFilter;
import javafx.stage.Modality;
-import javafx.stage.Stage;
import javafx.stage.StageStyle;
import javafx.stage.Window;
import java.io.File;
@@ -94,6 +93,8 @@
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Color4f;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.FilterContext;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Filterable;
+import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
+import javafx.util.Pair;
public abstract class Toolkit {
@@ -362,32 +363,36 @@
// and those changes propogated to scene before it gets its pulse to
update
// Copy of listener map
-final Map stagePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
-final Map scenePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
-final Map postScenePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
+final List,AccessControlContext>>
listenersList;
synchronized (this) {
-stagePulseList.putAll(stagePulseListeners);
-scenePulseList.putAll(scenePulseListeners);
-postScenePulseList.putAll(postScenePulseListeners);
+ listenersList = new
ArrayList<>(stagePulseListeners.size()+scenePulseListeners.size()+postScenePulseListeners.size());
+ copyListeners(stagePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(scenePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(postScenePulseListeners, listenersList);
}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
stagePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
-}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
scenePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
-}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
postScenePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
+
+for (int idx = 0, max = listenersList.size(); idx < max; idx++) {
+ Pair, AccessControlContext>
listenerEntry = listenersList.get(idx);
+ TKPulseListener pulseListener = listenerEntry.getKey().get();
+ if (pulseListener != null) {
+runPulse(pulseListener, listenerEntry.getValue());
+ }
review: Refactor swing Tests to match the rest of the tests
Refactor swing Tests to match the rest of the tests https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147416 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8147416/ -- David Hill Java Embedded Development "A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world." -- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
review: Move systemTest shims to proper module
Missed this in the previous systemTests rework: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8147398 http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ddhill/8147398/ Will submit to 9-dev though it really only affects Jake. -- David Hill Java Embedded Development "A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world." -- George Santayana (1863 - 1952)
Re: [PATCH] Decrease Toolkit.firePulse allocation rate
Hi Michael,
If you would like to file an RFE, that would be fine. Before you do,
please see the following page on contributing to an OpenJDK project such
as OpenJFX:
http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/
In particular, we need a signed Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) from
you before we can evaluate your patch. As part of this, we will also
need tests to verify that there is no functional regression, and a way
to measure the improvement.
Thanks!
-- Kevin
Doswald Michael wrote:
While profiling a JavaFX application that runs on embedded hardware, I have
found that the Toolkit.firePulse method creates more garbage than necessary. In
an application that simply animates an object without doing much else, I see
that the firePulse method allocates a fair amount of objects (compared to the
overall number of allocated objects). I have written a small patch that
decreases the allocation rate in said method. Since I'm not sure if such tweaks
are desired in the JavaFX codebase, I didn't open a JIRA issue. I'm happy to do
so if they are.
The following small application animates a single circle on screen. The
allocation rate of the 'JavaFX Application Thread' is as follows (measured with
jvisualvm):
openjfx 8u HEAD:~ 65 KB/s after start, ~ 49 KB/s after JIT compilation
kicked in
with patch:~ 25 KB/s, doesn't seem to change when JIT kicks
in
public class AllocateApp extends Application {
public static void main(String... args) {
Application.launch(args);
}
@Override
public void start(Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {
Circle circle = new Circle(10, 25, 10);
Timeline timeline = new Timeline(new KeyFrame(Duration.seconds(2), new
KeyValue(circle.centerXProperty(), 490)));
timeline.setCycleCount(Timeline.INDEFINITE);
timeline.setAutoReverse(true);
timeline.play();
primaryStage.setScene(new Scene(new Pane(circle), 500, 50));
primaryStage.show();
}
}
The patch below only creates a single List object instead of three WeakHashMaps
to make a local copy of the TKPulseListeners. It also uses the number of
listeners in the maps to estimate the size of the list. The patch uses
WeakReference objects in the list, which I doubt is necessary, but it emulates
the previous behaviour more accurately. I believe it would be possible to
change that to a strong reference for the following reasons:
a) The list is local and the strong references would only be there for the time
the firePulse method is run
b) The code would become more readable (less generics parameters, null-guard
not necessary in loop)
c) Getting rid of the WeakReference objects would decrease garbage generation
even more (down to ~ 21 KB/s)
Regards
Michael
diff -r f1c3eb85af4d
modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.java
--- a/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.javaFri Jan
08 08:11:51 2016 -0800
+++ b/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.javaWed Jan
13 10:43:27 2016 +0100
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
import javafx.scene.shape.StrokeType;
import javafx.stage.FileChooser.ExtensionFilter;
import javafx.stage.Modality;
-import javafx.stage.Stage;
import javafx.stage.StageStyle;
import javafx.stage.Window;
import java.io.File;
@@ -94,6 +93,8 @@
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Color4f;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.FilterContext;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Filterable;
+import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
+import javafx.util.Pair;
public abstract class Toolkit {
@@ -362,32 +363,36 @@
// and those changes propogated to scene before it gets its pulse to
update
// Copy of listener map
-final Map stagePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
-final Map scenePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
-final Map postScenePulseList =
-new WeakHashMap();
+final List,AccessControlContext>>
listenersList;
synchronized (this) {
-stagePulseList.putAll(stagePulseListeners);
-scenePulseList.putAll(scenePulseListeners);
-postScenePulseList.putAll(postScenePulseListeners);
+ listenersList = new
ArrayList<>(stagePulseListeners.size()+scenePulseListeners.size()+postScenePulseListeners.size());
+ copyListeners(stagePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(scenePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(postScenePulseListeners, listenersList);
}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
stagePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
-}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
scenePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
-}
-for (Map.Entry entry :
postScenePulseList.entrySet()) {
-runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
+
+for (int idx = 0, max = listenersList.size(); idx <
[PATCH] Decrease Toolkit.firePulse allocation rate
While profiling a JavaFX application that runs on embedded hardware, I have
found that the Toolkit.firePulse method creates more garbage than necessary. In
an application that simply animates an object without doing much else, I see
that the firePulse method allocates a fair amount of objects (compared to the
overall number of allocated objects). I have written a small patch that
decreases the allocation rate in said method. Since I'm not sure if such tweaks
are desired in the JavaFX codebase, I didn't open a JIRA issue. I'm happy to do
so if they are.
The following small application animates a single circle on screen. The
allocation rate of the 'JavaFX Application Thread' is as follows (measured with
jvisualvm):
openjfx 8u HEAD:~ 65 KB/s after start, ~ 49 KB/s after JIT compilation
kicked in
with patch:~ 25 KB/s, doesn't seem to change when JIT kicks
in
public class AllocateApp extends Application {
public static void main(String... args) {
Application.launch(args);
}
@Override
public void start(Stage primaryStage) throws Exception {
Circle circle = new Circle(10, 25, 10);
Timeline timeline = new Timeline(new KeyFrame(Duration.seconds(2), new
KeyValue(circle.centerXProperty(), 490)));
timeline.setCycleCount(Timeline.INDEFINITE);
timeline.setAutoReverse(true);
timeline.play();
primaryStage.setScene(new Scene(new Pane(circle), 500, 50));
primaryStage.show();
}
}
The patch below only creates a single List object instead of three WeakHashMaps
to make a local copy of the TKPulseListeners. It also uses the number of
listeners in the maps to estimate the size of the list. The patch uses
WeakReference objects in the list, which I doubt is necessary, but it emulates
the previous behaviour more accurately. I believe it would be possible to
change that to a strong reference for the following reasons:
a) The list is local and the strong references would only be there for the time
the firePulse method is run
b) The code would become more readable (less generics parameters, null-guard
not necessary in loop)
c) Getting rid of the WeakReference objects would decrease garbage generation
even more (down to ~ 21 KB/s)
Regards
Michael
diff -r f1c3eb85af4d
modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.java
--- a/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.java Fri Jan
08 08:11:51 2016 -0800
+++ b/modules/graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/Toolkit.java Wed Jan
13 10:43:27 2016 +0100
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
import javafx.scene.shape.StrokeType;
import javafx.stage.FileChooser.ExtensionFilter;
import javafx.stage.Modality;
-import javafx.stage.Stage;
import javafx.stage.StageStyle;
import javafx.stage.Window;
import java.io.File;
@@ -94,6 +93,8 @@
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Color4f;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.FilterContext;
import com.sun.scenario.effect.Filterable;
+import java.lang.ref.WeakReference;
+import javafx.util.Pair;
public abstract class Toolkit {
@@ -362,32 +363,36 @@
// and those changes propogated to scene before it gets its pulse to
update
// Copy of listener map
- final Map stagePulseList =
- new WeakHashMap();
- final Map scenePulseList =
- new WeakHashMap();
- final Map postScenePulseList =
- new WeakHashMap();
+ final List,AccessControlContext>>
listenersList;
synchronized (this) {
- stagePulseList.putAll(stagePulseListeners);
- scenePulseList.putAll(scenePulseListeners);
- postScenePulseList.putAll(postScenePulseListeners);
+ listenersList = new
ArrayList<>(stagePulseListeners.size()+scenePulseListeners.size()+postScenePulseListeners.size());
+ copyListeners(stagePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(scenePulseListeners, listenersList);
+ copyListeners(postScenePulseListeners, listenersList);
}
- for (Map.Entry entry :
stagePulseList.entrySet()) {
- runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
- }
- for (Map.Entry entry :
scenePulseList.entrySet()) {
- runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
- }
- for (Map.Entry entry :
postScenePulseList.entrySet()) {
- runPulse(entry.getKey(), entry.getValue());
+
+ for (int idx = 0, max = listenersList.size(); idx < max; idx++) {
+ Pair, AccessControlContext>
listenerEntry = listenersList.get(idx);
+ TKPulseListener pulseListener = listenerEntry.getKey().get();
+ if (pulseListener != null) {
+ runPulse(pulseListener, listenerEntry.getValue());
+ }
}
if (lastTkPulseListener != null) {
runPulse(lastTkPulseListener, lastTkPulseAcc);
}
}
+
+ private void copyListeners(Map
listenerMap, List,AccessControlContext>>
l
