> I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier .. > >> So specifying PDL is either a no-op, or is possibly going to >> cause a failure at runtime since you are forcing an inappropriate path. > > In short : do not do this. > > If this actually had any effect in your case this that means you have : > 1) not yet spotted where it lead to incorrect results. > and > 2) been lucky so far not to get a RuntimeException thrown.
We are talking past each other. The pdl path right now is what it is but by "bringing it out into the open" I was suggesting fixing the above problems, precisely. About the RuntimeException: it's entirely up to you to implement it so that it does not throw. About the incorrect results: by that I assume you refer to the features like certain transparency or shading effects that would not be supported. If so, have you ever heard of graceful degradation? You could skip those instructions, pick the closest implemented rendering, whatever; you do not have to throw. It is routine for page rendering engines (think browsers with HTML + CSS or SVG) to have limitations and implement only a subset of a given spec. Where would we be if, say, browsers decided to bomb every time they encounter an unimplemented SVG instruction? That is no way to implement this kind of product. >From my perspective it would be much better to get high-quality (i.e., not raster) translation of a more limited set of instructions than a raster version of the full set. At least it would be useful to have the choice but at the moment that option is denied to us. Regards, -- O.L. =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA2D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
