On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 09:17:16 GMT, Frederic Thevenet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> modules/javafx.graphics/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/tk/quantum/QuantumToolkit.java
>> line 1638:
>>
>>> 1637: renderWholeImage(x, y, w, h, rf, pImage);
>>> 1638: }
>>> 1639: params.platformImage = pImage;
>>
>> I tried to write this code using for loop to make it little easy for reader
>> to understand. This is just a suggestion, I
>> leave it to you to whether replace it or not,
>> int mTileWidth = computeTileSize(w, maxTextureSize);
>> int mTileHeight = computeTileSize(h, maxTextureSize);
>> IntBuffer buffer = IntBuffer.allocate(mTileWidth * mTileHeight);
>>
>> int mTileXOffset = 0;
>> int mTileYOffset = 0;
>> for (mTileXOffset = 0; (mTileXOffset + mTileWidth) <= w; mTileXOffset +=
>> mTileWidth) {
>> for (mTileYOffset = 0; (mTileYOffset + mTileHeight) <= h; mTileYOffset
>> += mTileHeight) {
>> renderTile(x, mTileXOffset, y, mTileYOffset, mTileWidth,
>> mTileHeight,
>> buffer, rf, tileRttCache, pImage);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> int rTileXOffset = mTileXOffset;
>> int rTileWidth = w - rTileXOffset;
>> if (rTileWidth > 0) {
>> for (int rTileYOffset = 0; (rTileYOffset + mTileHeight) <= h;
>> rTileYOffset += mTileHeight) {
>> renderTile(x, rTileXOffset, y, rTileYOffset, rTileWidth,
>> mTileHeight,
>> buffer, rf, tileRttCache, pImage);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> int bTileYOffset = mTileYOffset;
>> int bTileHeight = h - bTileYOffset;
>> if (bTileHeight > 0) {
>> for (int bTileXOffset = 0; (bTileXOffset + mTileWidth) <= w;
>> bTileXOffset += mTileWidth) {
>> renderTile(x, bTileXOffset, y, bTileYOffset, mTileWidth,
>> bTileHeight,
>> buffer, rf, tileRttCache, pImage);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> if (rTileWidth > 0 && bTileHeight > 0) {
>> renderTile(x, rTileXOffset, y, bTileYOffset, rTileWidth, bTileHeight,
>> buffer, rf, tileRttCache, pImage);
>> }
>
> Thanks for you suggestion.
>
> The original code is still too fresh in my mind for me to really be able to
> say which version is easier to understand,
> so I'll let others with a fresh pair of eyes be the judge of that. However I
> think your code is arguably more concise -
> and overall more elegant - so I'd be happy to swap my version for yours,
> provided it is considered at least as readable
> as the original. WDYT?
We'll leave it up to you, but I note that it will require retesting if you
adopt the suggested change.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/112
