Hi Anton,
I disagree, and here's my arguments:
1. The host bounds are not related to the /content/. Hence, adding this
method to the LightweightContent interface would look inconsistent from
API perspective.
2. Given the requirement to keep backward compatibility, the default
implementation of the method would return 'null', so the calling code
would have to check the return value and fall back to calling
LF.getBounds() manually. Currently this logic is encapsulated in the
LightweightFrame class itself, which looks reasonable to me.
3. SwingNode already calls other APIs on LF, such as
notifyDisplayChanged() (and again, this particular notification is
unrelated to the /content/ itself.) So adding the setHostBounds() to LF
looks consistent from this perspective, too.
4. The current implementation of the getHostBounds() method simply
returns a new rectangles using cached values. If we implement your
suggestion, then every call to CPLWW.getGraphicsDevice() would involve
an additional call to the SwingNode code, which may impact the
performance slightly.
5. I was almost ready to push the FX part of the fix today, and let's
admit it, this fix is very well overdue. I'd prefer if we don't modify
the interface anymore.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 5/23/2014 2:11 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Thanks for the update. I'm fine with the fix, except one thing. (I'm
sorry that I didn't say that earlier).
My concern is that we have the LightweightContent iface which is used to
communicate to the client app. And so the method
LightweightFrame.getHostBounds()
is better to be a method of that iface which the client (SwingNode) will
implement on its side. In that case we won't need the
LightweightFrame.setHostBounds() method.
This would look consistent from my perspective.
Thanks,
Anton.
On 22.05.2014 22:05, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 5/22/14 5:58 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
On 22.05.2014 15:36, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 5/22/14 11:47 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
On 22.05.2014 1:44, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 5/21/14 10:13 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Sergey,
The original fix provides some updates and clarifications to the
javadoc for the LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() method, but
they are missing from your fix. Is this intentional?
Nope. I just missed this update. I looked at this method closely
and got a question: do we need this scale parameter? Why we cannot
use w,h + scanstride here an skip all clarification about logical
coordinates?
Originally, Jim suggested to generalize the API:
<<Rather than imply any parameters, I think specifying a very exact
set of parameters gives the most flexibility. Even if the
relationships you characterize above are true, xywh,scan or
off,wh,scan both provide the flexibility to supply the data in
those formats without the client having to guess dimensions or scan
size. Any API that specifies an array containing data should always
provide the flexibility of specifying an offset (and x,y is a way
of specifying an offset for rectangular data and using a nio Buffer
can implicitly imply an offset based on its position) and when that
data is a rectangle of data then it should also supply independent
w,h and scan strides. If the offset is always 0, and if the
scanstride is always w in the implementation's that choose the data
storage then it may seem like overkill, but it provides the
flexibility of switching to a more sophisticated buffer re-use
strategy later without having to track down every client and update
them... >>
and so we provide all the coordinates.
I understand why we need x/y/w/h/scanstride but why we need scale,
because our buffer is pixel based anyway? In this case we have to
convert w/h/x/y/scanstride from logical to pixels and back.
The reasoning for that if the following. On the client side
(SwingNode), during the rendering of the image, there's a need to
have logical bounds of the image. So, this would require conversion
(devision) for what the client would need to know the scale factor
for what it would need to ask for it, separately. This would bring
another code path & dependencies (for instance, b/w SwingNode and its
prism peer). Currently, there's only one parameter of a method for
that purpose.
Ok. Here is an updated version:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.02
Thanks,
Anton.
Thanks,
Anton.
BTW, I've applied your fix and tested it with the latest version
of FX changes, and everything works smoothly on my Mac, including
the display change listener.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 5/21/2014 7:46 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello, Everybody.
Please review an updated version of this fix. This is a minimum
possible
fix. changes in shared code of jdk are minimized and can be
enhanced in
the future.
The fix is covering hdpi support in SwingNode on osx + system
look and
feel(Aqua).
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.01
Notes:
- This fix depends from two other fixes: JDK- 8041129 and
JDK-8041644.
Both are under review on 2d alias.
On 5/13/14 9:29 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
Hi Jim, Sergey, and Anton,
I'd like to revive this old thread and finally push this fix,
which
has been reviewed and approved on this mailing list back in
February.
The only additional change that I want to introduce, is the
addition
of default implementations for the
LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() methods. This allows
clients of
the API (namely, JavaFX) to run with both the old and the new
JDK w/o
any changes or side-effects. Here's the updated webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anthony/9-2-hiDPISwingNode-8029455.0/
It literally only adds the default methods and doesn't make any
other
changes to the rest of the already reviewed code. I've tested
this on
both hiDPI and loDPI displays, with both old and hiDPI-aware
JavaFX
builds, and it works fine in all the cases.
The current plan is to push this fix to JDK 9, and then
back-port the
changes to 8u20.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 2/21/2014 2:47 AM, Jim Graham wrote:
Yes, approved.
...jim
On 2/17/14 6:09 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Jim, so this is ready for a push then.
Thanks!
Anton.
On 15.02.2014 5:01, Jim Graham wrote:
I don't need to see an update for that. I didn't read the
entire
webrev, but I looked at this one piece of code and if that
was the
only thing changed then I think that dealt with the outstanding
issues...
...jim
On 2/13/14 11:12 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
On 14.02.2014 2:52, Jim Graham wrote:
On 2/13/14 5:03 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
Hi Jim,
Please, look at the update:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ant/JDK-8029455/webrev.5
Here I'm correcting the rect after the transform in SG2D:
2123 // In case of negative scale transform,
reflect the
rect
coords.
2124 if (w < 0) {
2125 w *= -1;
2126 x -= w;
2127 }
2128 if (h < 0) {
2129 h *= -1;
2130 y -= h;
2131 }
The blit direction (dx, dy) remains transformed. Is this
the right
behavior from your perspective?
Yes, that looks good. I wonder if the "w *= -1" results in a
multiply
byte code whereas "w = -w" would avoid the multiply?
...jim
Jim,
Yes, this indeed results in different byte code
instructions (imult &
ineg). Just for curiosity I did some measuring which showed
negatioation
worked 10% faster :)
Well, I'll fix it but let me please not send an update...
Thanks!
Anton.
