On Mar 12, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to
solve the (seemingly most commonly requested) use case of
rotating/scaling images. So if we want to solve those use cases we
need to either come up with a separate API for that, or extend this
proposal to solve that use case somehow.
Just for reference I think one thing that people are forgetting
that there is a difference between
being computationally faster, and being more responsive.
As I mentioned in my email, if you look at the steps listed, enough of
them happen *on the main thread* that you're spending far more of the
main threads CPU cycles than you'd like. Possibly even more than doing
all the resizing on the main thread.
With the other improvements suggested by David things do definitely
look different, but those are not in a proposal yet.
In general a copy is a fair bit faster than an image rotate or resize,
though I don't know if it is faster enough for reasonable image sizes
to matter.
Regards,
Maciej
