Hi Jim. So, I have the nicer webrevs. FlatteningIterator version: http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpWithStrokeControl/webrev/
Pisces flattening version: http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpWithSCandPiscesFlattening/webrev/ I dealt with the issue of handling OFF by just not accepting it as an input. After all, a normalizing iterator only needs to be created, and is only created if the normalization mode is not OFF. Thanks, Denis. ----- "Jim Graham" <james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Denis, > > I'll wait for some clean webrevs once you get the float stuff in for a > > final review. I did take a really quick look and thought that a > better > way to handle "OFF" would be to set rval to -1 and then check "rval < > 0" > as the (quicker) test for OFF in the currentSegment() method. Does > that > make sense? > > In any case, let's wait for cleaner webrevs to go further on this > (hopefully in a day or so?)... > > ...jim > > On 8/5/2010 8:06 AM, Denis Lila wrote: > > Hi Jim. > > > > I made all the suggested changes. > > Links: > > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpWithStrokeControl/webrev/ > > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/~dlila/webrevs/fpWithSCandPiscesFlattening/webrev/ > > > > Thanks, > > Denis. > > > > ----- "Jim Graham"<james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Denis, > >> > >> First, comments on the high level normalizer (Normalizing > iterator): > >> > >> - If there is no normalization going on, I would use the Shape's > own > >> flattening (i.e. getPathIterator(at, flat)). The reason being > that > >> some > >> shapes may know how to flatten themselves better, or faster, than > a > >> Flattening Iterator. In particular, rectangles and polygons would > >> simply ignore the argument and save themselves the cost of > wrapping > >> with > >> an extra iterator. This would probably only be a big issue for > very > >> long Polygons. > >> > >> - Line 331 - the initializations to NaN aren't necessary as far as > I > >> can > >> tell...? > >> > >> - Rather than saving "mode" in the normalizing iterator, how about > >> saving 2 constants: (0.0, 0.5) for AA and (0.25, 0.25) for non-AA > and > >> > >> then simply add those constants in rather than having to have the > >> conditional with the 2 different equations? > >> > >> ...jim
