[OpenJDK 2D-Dev] [9] Review request for 8163854 Add ToolkitImage.getImage() method which loads an image with schema variant
Philip Race
philip.race at oracle.com
Thu Sep 22 17:52:49 UTC 2016
Why do we need a new issue ?
I don't see how this fix can proceed without a lot of changes along
the lines I suggested and that should (must even) be part of it.
-phil.
On 9/22/16, 10:41 AM, Alexandr Scherbatiy wrote:
> On 9/22/2016 11:30 AM, Jim Graham wrote:
>> It gets further complicated, though, when you consider that we
>> probably need the dimensions of the base image for any metrics
>> reporting anyway.
>>
>> Consider a 25x25 image with variants. If the user supplies a 125pct
>> variant then they will need an image that is 31.25 pixels in size.
>> Do they use a 31 pixel image or a 32 pixel image? And if they offer
>> one of those with the suffix that tells us that it is a 125pct image,
>> then when we try to report the size, do we report it as:
>>
>> 31/1.25 == 24.8 pixels == do we report 24 or 25?
>> 32/1.25 == 25.6 pixels == do we report 25 or 26?
>>
>> In the end, we can't really report anything until we load the base
>> image and discover that we should be reporting 25x25 to the observer
>> and scaling all SOME_BITS notifications based on 25/31 or 25/32...
>>
>> Given that we need the original base image size to do anything
>> useful, it may be much more feasible to handle things as Phil
>> suggests...
> I have filled an issue on it:
> JDK-8166566 Improper toolkit resolution variant scale should be
> properly handled.
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8166566
>
> Thanks,
> Alexandr.
>
>>
>> ...jim
>>
>> On 9/21/16 5:48 PM, Jim Graham wrote:
>>> I think this is a good point. The only gotcha would appear to be
>>> handling the ImageObserver notifications and the
>>> prepareImage() calls.
>>>
>>> The ImageObserver should get the variant's dimensions as one of the
>>> first notifications, though if they trigger an image
>>> load and then add an observer later, I'm not sure if it will get the
>>> back-notifications or not. Also, it would need to
>>> know the base image dimensions, but the base image may not be loaded
>>> yet due to lazy loading and/or receiving the data
>>> for the @Nx version of the image before you receive the data for the
>>> regular version. All of those add complexity with
>>> trying to figure out how to notify an observer of incoming information.
>>>
>>> So, lazy loading may make this approach infeasible. Alexandr?
>>>
>>> ...jim
>>>
>>> On 9/21/16 11:47 AM, Philip Race wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> When the application is specifying the set of images from which
>>>> to build the MRI you ask the app to specify a "schema" (probably
>>>> not the
>>>> right name given that it is per-file), and a floating point scale.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why we need to ask the app to name the files
>>>> in accordance with our schema in this case .. it should just be
>>>> able to list the set of files. It looks redundant to an app developer
>>>> to say "150pct" is scale "1.5".
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the ideal is the image is exactly what the naming convention
>>>> implies it is, but what if it is not ?
>>>>
>>>> This issue does exist already even in JDK 8 .. if the
>>>> @2x image is really 1.5X the @1 image
>>>>
>>>> Consider what happens if this contradicts the floating point scale ?
>>>> It appears to me that as implemented, in practice, the app could
>>>> call it "@XXX",
>>>> and once @XXX has been used to find the file, the only thing that
>>>> actually
>>>> matters is the floating point scale.
>>>>
>>>> So the naming schema is not important when they provide the scale.
>>>>
>>>> But we still have the issue that the *actual* image size may not be
>>>> what they said it was - either explicitly or by convention.
>>>>
>>>> Supposing what is claimed to be a 1.5x1.5 scale image is actually
>>>> 1.0x2.0 times the size of the base image ? It is not even uniform.
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately what needs to "win" is the w:h ratio of the base image
>>>> and we generally would want to pick whichever image best works
>>>> for the actual device scale, based on the *real* dimensions of
>>>> the hi-res image, don't we ?
>>>>
>>>> In which case, I'd expect us to work out the scale automatically.
>>>> It is WID_HIRES/WID_BASE x HGT_HIRES/HGT_BASE
>>>>
>>>> At which point why do we even need the app to tell us anything
>>>> except the (full) names of the files where to get the set of images,
>>>> with the first one being the base .. or perhaps it should always
>>>> be the "smallest".
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise if any are in fact smaller (or the same as) BASE .. do we
>>>> just discard them ?
>>>>
>>>> -phil.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/19/16, 12:03 PM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you review the updated fix:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/8163854/webrev.01
>>>>>
>>>>> The fix includes support for resolution variants loading by
>>>>> getImage() method for built-in toolkits using the
>>>>> following media resolution naming scheme (qualifier, scale):
>>>>> ("@125pct", 1.25), ("@150pct", 1.5), ("@200pct" or "@2x",
>>>>> 2), ("@250pct", 2.5), ("@300pct" or "@3x", 3).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/08/16 05:39, Philip Race wrote:
>>>>>> FWIW I think the most important image loading use case
>>>>>> is that some generic resource loading code - perhaps JDK code -
>>>>>> will get a URL for where
>>>>>> the resources are and go hunting. It is never going to call this
>>>>>> API .. so
>>>>>> it had better be an optimisation and not a necessity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/24/16, 5:24 PM, Philip Race wrote:
>>>>>>> Alexander,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were the existing Toolkit.getImage(String/URL) APIs not
>>>>>>> enhanced to
>>>>>>> do this for you automatically ? I suppose I thought they were but
>>>>>>> they can't be since you are using getImage(String) here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO that would be more important than this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And in any case I don't see why this is solved only for local
>>>>>>> files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am *not* asking for that right now. I am asking if the
>>>>>>> existing Toolkit APIs
>>>>>>> can load a multi-res image and if not, why not and can we fix
>>>>>>> that instead ..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/24/16, 9:36 AM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you review the fix:
>>>>>>>> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8163854
>>>>>>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alexsch/8163854/webrev.00
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The public API which allows to load an image with resolution
>>>>>>>> variants based on the provided media resolution
>>>>>>>> naming scheme is added:
>>>>>>>> - Toolkit.MediaResolutionNamingScheme class
>>>>>>>> - Toolkit.getImageUsingNamingSchemes(String fileName,
>>>>>>>> MediaResolutionNamingScheme... namingSchemes)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A simple example for images which use naming scheme @150pct
>>>>>>>> for scale 1.5 and @2x for scale 2 is:
>>>>>>>> image_name.ext
>>>>>>>> image_name at 150pct.ext
>>>>>>>> image_name at 2x.ext
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Toolkit toolkit = Toolkit.getDefaultToolkit();
>>>>>>>> Image image = toolkit.getImageUsingNamingSchemes(fileName,
>>>>>>>> new Toolkit.MediaResolutionNamingScheme(“@150pct”,
>>>>>>>> 1.5f),
>>>>>>>> new Toolkit.MediaResolutionNamingScheme(“@2x", 2f)
>>>>>>>> );
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Alexandr.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>
More information about the 2d-dev
mailing list