World: r3wp
[!REBOL3 GUI]
older newer | first last |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2623] | if each type does something different then everything becomes complex, except for one if condition in the run-time. |
BrianH 12-Aug-2010 [2624] | Sorry, you lost me at "inherit". I'll have to let Cyphre chime in from this point. |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2625] | again, I'd have to look at the AGG rasterizing pipeline to see how it functions, but the only procedural overhead is in how it inherits its origin at each gob. it might even be impossible from the get-go, based on how the actual rasterization is performed. in Flash this would be impossible. but IIRC past discussions with Cyphre, we use a different rasterizing process, which would allow the whole idea. |
BrianH 12-Aug-2010 [2626] | You keep looking at procedural overhead and ignoring conceptual and declarative overhead. Keep those in mind, please. |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2627x2] | no I am not. the implementation example allows a 100% invisible to current use, without any in-REBOL code added. applying it is a simple assignment of a value to a (new) gob! property. |
conceptually is solves a problem in just about GUI engines out there. and its dead simple to use and understand. | |
BrianH 12-Aug-2010 [2629] | And with that added option, how simple is it to check the gobs to make sure the option isn't specified? Multiply that answer by the number of times that check would need to be added to code. That is why you lost me at "inherit". But if you can convince Carl and Cyphre, go for it. |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2630] | the way I see it the direction would be managed at the same place and time any origin check is performed. |
BrianH 12-Aug-2010 [2631] | at the same place and time any origin check is performed - That is the added complexity, the origin checks. |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2632] | yep. |
BrianH 12-Aug-2010 [2633] | And how often would user code written in REBOL need to add origin checks? Style writers? |
Maxim 12-Aug-2010 [2634x3] | for GUIs, actually never. unless they are building a funky style which manages this property specifically. |
if you decide to reverse rendering direction, manually, its your decision. you children should render upside down. | |
that is what you asking view to do. | |
Oldes 13-Aug-2010 [2637x2] | I'm not sure if it helps, but in Flash you can set alignement as you need: http://www.adobe.com/support/flash/action_scripts/actionscript_dictionary/actionscript_dictionary674.html In REBOL we have TL and Maxim asks for BL. |
The difference is, that in Flash you can set it only once.. but Maxim want's per gob alignement. | |
DideC 13-Aug-2010 [2639] | Its not alignments, its coordinate system. With alignments the movie picture is glue to a border or centered in both direction. With coordinate the picture itself would be mirrored in H or V ! |
Cyphre 13-Aug-2010 [2640] | Long discussion here ;) Ok, currently we are using origin(0x0) of coordinates from top-left corner. If I understand Maxim's request he wants to be able to easily change the orgin so it starts from bottom-left corner right? |
Graham 13-Aug-2010 [2641x3] | Yes |
for somethings it is easier to use top left and others bottom left as 0x0 | |
Accepting that few other systems allow you to change the coordinate system on the fly | |
Cyphre 13-Aug-2010 [2644x3] | If this is the issue there are two solutions. 1. even now you can set the transformation matrix for example using MATRIX command(or other matrix related commands) to change that 2. internally in the AGG code there is a way how to change the order in which the scanlines of the framebuffer are rendered in the Y-axis. In other words you can flip the Y axis. |
the 1. is very flexible way how to setup the coordinate system ie. it allows you not only top-left or bottom-let but any other way you need. using the 2. you can only control the Y axis nothing more | |
We we look at this from the performance POV: -IIRC the transformation matrix is *always* used in the graphics pipeline so it doesn't matter if the matrix is set to 'top-letf' or 'bottom-left' or whatever else. There is no performance difference. The only difference is that if you want to change the 'origin' you need to put one mroe command into the DRAW dialect block. I think you will agree that one more matrix command in the block can be assumed as almost no performance penalty. | |
Graham 13-Aug-2010 [2647] | so easy :) |
Cyphre 13-Aug-2010 [2648x4] | same is also for the 2. the flipping of Y-axis doesn't affect the performance in any way no matter what mode are you using. |
Also I should say that the 'flip-y' functionality is meant to be for the whole framebuffer = window. Se even if we expose such setting you won't be able to apply it per-gob, only per-window. One more thing is that the flip-y mode is working as mirror so any text/images will be flipped upside down which is not usable. IMO any changes in that regard would slow down the scanlien rendering operations. | |
Well, even if we use the tranformation matrix the text and images will be upside down because that is the 'behaviour' of Cartesian coordinates system. | |
So IMO in both case there needs to be done some additional changes so images/fill-patterns, vectorial text etc. will be rendered correctly. And I feel such changes fit more to some 'layout code functionality' than being part of low level rendering. In other words it is much easier to write simple coordinate conversion function in REBOL for such needs. The reason is simple: if we add that at low-level we'll slow-down the whole code even if you use the default coordinate system. Just a quick thoughs so I'm open to any better ideas. | |
Pekr 13-Aug-2010 [2652] | As for native code, instead of coordinate system, I would maybe more like to see some experiments as compound rasterizer, or other low-level optimisations (when time permits) |
Graham 13-Aug-2010 [2653] | It would be good to see if there is any significant hit |
Anton 13-Aug-2010 [2654] | Cyphre, I agree; it's already so easy to flip the y-axis in REBOL. |
Pekr 13-Aug-2010 [2655] | Anton - are you planning to create some styles for R3 GUI? IIRC in the past you created grid, etc., so maybe you might bring-in great additions .... |
Cyphre 13-Aug-2010 [2656] | Graham, I still think this is really low priority thing. IMO this feature will be used in 1% in real usage so it is always easier to use the transformation or just write your own custom coordinate convesion function |
Anton 13-Aug-2010 [2657] | Pekr: Ah... eventually... I have not recovered enough stamina to strike into this area yet. |
Graham 14-Aug-2010 [2658] | still nothing for us to try yet? |
Henrik 14-Aug-2010 [2659] | needs more testing to see if everyone can compile the host kit. |
Graham 14-Aug-2010 [2660] | problems? |
Henrik 14-Aug-2010 [2661] | no, just standard procedure |
Robert 14-Aug-2010 [2662] | Ok, latest host-kit compiled. Rich-text now included. |
Graham 14-Aug-2010 [2663] | Good news for all men |
shadwolf 15-Aug-2010 [2664x3] | Cyphre and other : LOL so it's all about monney ... your are a bunch of liars and pretenders ... and you think how much it will take to get R3 done ? Even if i give you ten thousand dollars i'm absolutly sure rebol will remain your last priority ... |
and that's the truth and nothing but the truth and saying it's a monney main reason it's a cheap excuse. YOU WANT MY MONNEY MAKE A FOUNDATION PUT 100% OF REBOL CODE IN GPL AND THEN YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO GET MY MONNE .In the current state no way ... plain and simple you are not anough apealing .... | |
Robert absolutly not and more i spend time here less i want to participate in anything .... that's how you motivate contributions... | |
Pekr 15-Aug-2010 [2667] | shadwolf - maybe you should stop accussing guys, who try to do something for us. It is not about the money itself, it is about the manpower. We have to prioritise things, and money can make help here. As for me, I always fighted against - now you can code it yourself attitude - that simply sucks. But - in opposition to the past, we actually can let it happen - if you contract some developer. In the past, all sources were hidden from us ... |
shadwolf 15-Aug-2010 [2668x2] | Pekr WHAT HAVE YOU DONE THE PAST MONTH TO TRY TO GET ME CONVINCED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROJECT ? Any time I try get a serrious conversation here about where are we going or how things are done i get cheap lame excuses and I'm tired of it ! I stated a long ago the current phylosophy in communautary contributions don't fit with me (it was in may 2005) you can't sit on 2 chairs at same time and expect to be stable. You can't say rebol is a commercial trade marked business and don't pay the contributors and give them credits for their contributions . You can't say a part of it is commercial an other part is free that's ethically not right. That's my way to see it ... Then i won't participate to a project where the all mighty god fater can come out of nowhere and trash my month of hard work in a blink of an eye without any justification. I won't participate in a team with people that don't want to share knowledge. I won't participate in a team where people can take in hostage the whole project to get money for themselves. I won't participate in a project where i can't do any proposal with being insulted... Did I made myself clear ? |
and that is the kind of community YOU built the past 10 years and that why so many left it ... Face it and make the changes that needs to be done. | |
Anton 15-Aug-2010 [2670] | shadwolf -> Vent. |
shadwolf 15-Aug-2010 [2671] | you can add : I won't paticipate in a project where there is not global plan and only a short term view and a one shot tries stack of things. |
Anton 15-Aug-2010 [2672] | shadwolf, please continue in ~Vent group. |
older newer | first last |