Hi Jim.
> I think the first version is a better choice for now since you said that
> the performance difference isn't noticeable. I think the lower level
> flattening might look a little different if we ever decide to upgrade
> the pipeline to deal with curves. In particular, you are still
> flattening above the dashing/stroking code and I think the flattening
> should be done below that code (i.e. in Renderer).
Wouldn't we still need to flatten for dashing? Is there some way to
quickly compute the arc length of a bezier curve from t=0 to t=some_number?
As far as I can see the function for this computation is the integral of
sqrt(polynomial_of_degree_4), and that would be pretty nasty.
Or maybe we can get around this somehow?
> - You indent by 8 spaces in a few places. Is that a tabs vs. spaces
> issue? We try to stick to 4 space indentations with no tabs for
> consistentcy.
Yes it is. Sorry about this. Eclipse is completely ignoring my "replace
tabs with spaces" option.
Thanks,
Denis.
- "Jim Graham" wrote:
> Hi Denis,
>
> So, I'd go with the first one with the following comments:
>
> - I'd make the internal error message a little less personal. ;-)
> "normalization not needed in OFF mode" or something.
>
> - lines 362,363 - you don't need to set cur_adjust variables here,
> they are already being set below.
>
> Other than that, it looks good to go...
>
> ...jim
>
> Denis Lila wrote:
> > 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" 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" 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
