ailto:gl...@skynav.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM
>
> *To:* fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by
> default?
>
> well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to
> disabl
I don't use command line.
I don't use a configuration file.
Effect on embedded code?
From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:18 PM
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Re: should complex script features be
well, the consensus seems to enable by default, which I have now done; to
disable, there are two methods:
(1) use '-nocs' option on command line
(2) use in configuration file
this will go into my next patch to the Temp_ComplexScripts branch
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:58 PM, J.Pietschmann wrote:
Am 19.07.2011 09:51, schrieb Jeremias Maerki:
I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.
I had the same thoughts.
J.Pietschmann
You are right, the difference is not significant.
Enabled by default makes sense for me.
Le 19/07/2011 15:36, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
> tests, I get the following:
> TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
> junit
Hmm, that may not be a very representative example, since:
- Arial Unicode MS is one of the largest fonts (23MB, 50377 glyphs)
- read{GDEF,GSUB,GPOS} is a one-time event when reading the font
It would be useful for you to try:
- one page versus 2000 pages
- same but with another font
Hi Glenn,
What we did isn't very complex, a 2000-odd page document filled with
Loret ipsum... That's about it, the font used was ArialUnicodeMS.ttf
and was embedded in the PDF. The version was i18n.arabic@09c38b8b and
the major blocking point was in TTFFile.java readGDEF(in) readGSUB(in)
and readG
I'm not sure what you mean by "the layout tests don't cover fonts,
rendering". While it is true that those tests do not cover rendering, it
does include use of fonts.
Could you send me the "large latin only document" in FO form (preferably
compressed if large), so I may test it?
G.
On Tue, Jul 1
Hi Glenn,
We took a look at the complex scripts support, and a big chunk of the
code-base is in the fonts, and the layout tests don't cover fonts,
rendering etc. What are you finding for end-to-end performance? We
created a large latin only document and found about 50% increase in
time.
Mehdi
On
On 07/19/2011 09:36 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> So, I'd say that there is about a 1% decrease in speed performance
> based on this data.
>
> I doubt if users will even notice this, so this would argue for
> enabling by default.
Agree. For a feature of this magnitude, 1% is not a huge hit, and
presu
Taking the average of the best 3 out of 5 runs for a couple of the junit
tests, I get the following:
TRUNK CMPLX DIFF%
junit-basic 4.87s 4.92s 1.01%
junit-layout-standard36.34s36.72s 1.04%
In the case of junit-layout-standard, the
rs, applications not crashing is the number one priority.
> Performance is number two.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pascal Sancho [mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:08 AM
> To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
> Subject: Re:
Original Message-
From: Pascal Sancho [mailto:pascal.san...@takoma.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:08 AM
To: fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Re: should complex script features be enabled or disabled by default?
Hi Glenn,
IMHO, the default setting should depend on how
Hi Glenn,
IMHO, the default setting should depend on how much it affects the
performances.
Can you give an approximative impact?
Le 19/07/2011 03:40, Glenn Adams a écrit :
> I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
> (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime
I'd enable it by default. I think that results in fewer questions and
performance freaks can always disable it if you can make it configurable.
On 19.07.2011 03:40:56 Glenn Adams wrote:
> I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
> (bidi, complex char to glyph mapping
ntMedia GmbH: www.willmy.de<http://www.willmy.de>
Willmy Consult & Content GmbH:
www.willmycc.de<http://www.willmycc.de>
Von: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 19. Juli 2011 03:41
An: FOP Developers
Betreff: should complex script features be en
I'm adding a feature to allow enable/disable of complex script features
(bidi, complex char to glyph mapping) at runtime, using either (or both)
command line option and config file element; the question I have is whether
to enable or disable by default?
If enabled by default, those who don't use c
17 matches
Mail list logo
