[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] <AWT Dev> [9] Review Request: JDK-8029455 JLightweightFrame: support scaled painting
Anthony Petrov
anthony.petrov at oracle.com
Fri May 23 10:47:29 UTC 2014
Hi Anton,
I disagree, and here's my arguments:
1. The host bounds are not related to the /content/. Hence, adding this
method to the LightweightContent interface would look inconsistent from
API perspective.
2. Given the requirement to keep backward compatibility, the default
implementation of the method would return 'null', so the calling code
would have to check the return value and fall back to calling
LF.getBounds() manually. Currently this logic is encapsulated in the
LightweightFrame class itself, which looks reasonable to me.
3. SwingNode already calls other APIs on LF, such as
notifyDisplayChanged() (and again, this particular notification is
unrelated to the /content/ itself.) So adding the setHostBounds() to LF
looks consistent from this perspective, too.
4. The current implementation of the getHostBounds() method simply
returns a new rectangles using cached values. If we implement your
suggestion, then every call to CPLWW.getGraphicsDevice() would involve
an additional call to the SwingNode code, which may impact the
performance slightly.
5. I was almost ready to push the FX part of the fix today, and let's
admit it, this fix is very well overdue. I'd prefer if we don't modify
the interface anymore.
--
best regards,
Anthony
On 5/23/2014 2:11 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> Thanks for the update. I'm fine with the fix, except one thing. (I'm
> sorry that I didn't say that earlier).
>
> My concern is that we have the LightweightContent iface which is used to
> communicate to the client app. And so the method
>
> LightweightFrame.getHostBounds()
>
> is better to be a method of that iface which the client (SwingNode) will
> implement on its side. In that case we won't need the
> LightweightFrame.setHostBounds() method.
>
> This would look consistent from my perspective.
>
> Thanks,
> Anton.
>
> On 22.05.2014 22:05, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> On 5/22/14 5:58 PM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>> On 22.05.2014 15:36, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/14 11:47 AM, Anton V. Tarasov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Sergey,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22.05.2014 1:44, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/14 10:13 PM, Anthony Petrov wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> Nope. I just missed this update. I looked at this method closely
>>>>>> and got a question: do we need this scale parameter? Why we cannot
>>>>>> use w,h + scanstride here an skip all clarification about logical
>>>>>> coordinates?
>>>>>
>>>>> Originally, Jim suggested to generalize the API:
>>>>>
>>>>> <<Rather than imply any parameters, I think specifying a very exact
>>>>> set of parameters gives the most flexibility. Even if the
>>>>> relationships you characterize above are true, xywh,scan or
>>>>> off,wh,scan both provide the flexibility to supply the data in
>>>>> those formats without the client having to guess dimensions or scan
>>>>> size. Any API that specifies an array containing data should always
>>>>> provide the flexibility of specifying an offset (and x,y is a way
>>>>> of specifying an offset for rectangular data and using a nio Buffer
>>>>> can implicitly imply an offset based on its position) and when that
>>>>> data is a rectangle of data then it should also supply independent
>>>>> w,h and scan strides. If the offset is always 0, and if the
>>>>> scanstride is always w in the implementation's that choose the data
>>>>> storage then it may seem like overkill, but it provides the
>>>>> flexibility of switching to a more sophisticated buffer re-use
>>>>> strategy later without having to track down every client and update
>>>>> them... >>
>>>>>
>>>>> and so we provide all the coordinates.
>>>> I understand why we need x/y/w/h/scanstride but why we need scale,
>>>> because our buffer is pixel based anyway? In this case we have to
>>>> convert w/h/x/y/scanstride from logical to pixels and back.
>>>
>>> The reasoning for that if the following. On the client side
>>> (SwingNode), during the rendering of the image, there's a need to
>>> have logical bounds of the image. So, this would require conversion
>>> (devision) for what the client would need to know the scale factor
>>> for what it would need to ask for it, separately. This would bring
>>> another code path & dependencies (for instance, b/w SwingNode and its
>>> prism peer). Currently, there's only one parameter of a method for
>>> that purpose.
>> Ok. Here is an updated version:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8029455/webrev.02
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anton.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Anton.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the 2d-dev
mailing list