[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [9] Review Request: JDK-8029455 JLightweightFrame: support scaled painting

[Anthony Petrov]

Hi Sergey,

The original fix provides some updates and clarifications to the javadoc 
for the LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() method, but they are 
missing from your fix. Is this intentional?

BTW, I've applied your fix and tested it with the latest version of FX 
changes, and everything works smoothly on my Mac, including the display 
change listener.

--
best regards,
Anthony

On 5/21/2014 7:46 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
> Hello, Everybody.
> Please review an updated version of this fix. This is a minimum possible
> fix. changes in shared code of jdk are minimized and can be enhanced in
> the future.
> The fix is covering hdpi support in SwingNode on osx + system look and
> feel(Aqua).
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.01
>
> Notes:
>   - This fix depends from two other fixes: JDK- 8041129 and JDK-8041644.
> Both are under review on 2d alias.
>
> On 5/13/14 9:29 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
>> Hi Jim, Sergey, and Anton,
>>
>> I'd like to revive this old thread and finally push this fix, which
>> has been reviewed and approved on this mailing list back in February.
>> The only additional change that I want to introduce, is the addition
>> of default implementations for the
>> LightweightContent.imageBufferReset() methods. This allows clients of
>> the API (namely, JavaFX) to run with both the old and the new JDK w/o
>> any changes or side-effects. Here's the updated webrev:
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anthony/9-2-hiDPISwingNode-8029455.0/
>>
>> It literally only adds the default methods and doesn't make any other
>> changes to the rest of the already reviewed code. I've tested this on
>> both hiDPI and loDPI displays, with both old and hiDPI-aware JavaFX
>> builds, and it works fine in all the cases.
>>
>> The current plan is to push this fix to JDK 9, and then back-port the
>> changes to 8u20.
>>
>> --
>> best regards,
>> Anthony
>>
>> On 2/21/2014 2:47 AM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>> Yes, approved.
>>>
>>>          ...jim
>>>
>>> On 2/17/14 6:09 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>> Jim, so this is ready for a push then.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Anton.
>>>>
>>>> On 15.02.2014 5:01, Jim Graham wrote:
>>>>> I don't need to see an update for that.  I didn't read the entire
>>>>> webrev, but I looked at this one piece of code and if that was the
>>>>> only thing changed then I think that dealt with the outstanding
>>>>> issues...
>>>>>
>>>>>         ...jim
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/14 11:12 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>>> On 14.02.2014 2:52, Jim Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/13/14 5:03 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please, look at the update:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ant/JDK-8029455/webrev.5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here I'm correcting the rect after the transform in SG2D:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2123         // In case of negative scale transform, reflect the
>>>>>>>> rect
>>>>>>>> coords.
>>>>>>>> 2124         if (w < 0) {
>>>>>>>> 2125             w *= -1;
>>>>>>>> 2126             x -= w;
>>>>>>>> 2127         }
>>>>>>>> 2128         if (h < 0) {
>>>>>>>> 2129             h *= -1;
>>>>>>>> 2130             y -= h;
>>>>>>>> 2131         }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The blit direction (dx, dy) remains transformed. Is this the right
>>>>>>>> behavior from your perspective?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that looks good.  I wonder if the "w *= -1" results in a
>>>>>>> multiply
>>>>>>> byte code whereas "w = -w" would avoid the multiply?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             ...jim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, this indeed results in different byte code instructions (imult &
>>>>>> ineg). Just for curiosity I did some measuring which showed
>>>>>> negatioation
>>>>>> worked 10% faster :)
>>>>>> Well, I'll fix it but let me please not send an update...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Anton.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>
>