[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] X11 uniform scaled wide lines and dashed lines; STROKE_CONTROL in Pisces

[Denis Lila]

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" <james.graham at oracle.com> 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"<james.graham at oracle.com>  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