pivot-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Brown <gkbr...@mac.com>
Subject Re: Square PushButton
Date Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:03:04 GMT
Scott,
Try syncing with the latest from SVN, and change  
minimumPreferredAspectRatio back to preferredAspectRatio and -1.2 to  
1.2. Please let me know how that works.
Thanks,
G


On Aug 11, 2009, at 6:20 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:

> Attached is the most recent wtkx file I have been testing with.
>
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:39:12 pm Greg Brown wrote:
>> This is actually almost identical to how it used to work before I
>> renamed the property to minimumPreferredAspectRatio, so I guess it
>> probably makes sense to revert that.
>>
>> However, due to a caching issue, you still won't quite be able to
>> achieve what you are trying to do. We currently cache the values of
>> the preferred size calculations for performance reasons. So, the
>> widest component doesn't get scaled up (nor do any other components
>> that report the same preferred width). I have a fix in mind, but I
>> want to give it some thought before committing it. I'll make the
>> changes to TerraPushButtonSkin, anyways and the cache fix will come
>> later.
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
>>> From what I can see the way the current aspect ratio is calculated
>>> and then
>>> used is biased towards an increase in width. In that context I can
>>> see why you
>>> call it a minimum aspect ratio.
>>>
>>> To make what I want work I need the bias to be for the height to
>>> increase so
>>> that really the aspect ratio is a maximum. So what I have done is to
>>> say that
>>> if the aspect ratio is +ve then the current behaviour applies but if
>>> it is -ve
>>> then the aspect ratio is a maximum and the height needs to be
>>> increased. Using
>>> a negative number has just been a simple way of getting a result
>>> without
>>> having to change to much code.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> In getPreferredWidth() nothing changes.
>>>
>>> In getPrefereedHeight() the calculation using aspect ratio is:
>>>
>>>           // Adjust for preferred aspect ratio
>>>           if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
>>>               && minimumPreferredAspectRatio < 0.0
>>>               && (float)width / (float)preferredHeight > -
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
>>>               preferredHeight = (int)(width / -
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
>>>           }
>>>
>>> In getPreferredSize() it is:
>>>
>>>       // Adjust for preferred aspect ratio
>>>       if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
>>>           && (float)preferredWidth / (float)preferredHeight <
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
>>>           preferredWidth = (int)(preferredHeight *
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
>>>       }
>>>       else if (!Float.isNaN(minimumPreferredAspectRatio)
>>>               && minimumPreferredAspectRatio < 0.0
>>>               && (float)preferredWidth / (float)preferredHeight >
-
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio) {
>>>               preferredHeight = (int)(preferredWidth / -
>>> minimumPreferredAspectRatio);
>>>       }
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> The height not being changed when the aspect ratio is +ve doesn't
>>> appear to
>>> affect either of our use cases. I can't think what affect this will
>>> have in
>>> general.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:04:26 am Greg Brown wrote:
>>>> OK. How about a high-level description of the change?
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Scott Lanham wrote:
>>>>> I'll give it a go but I will need to change what I have done. It  
>>>>> is
>>>>> not
>>>>> suitable to submit as a patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:38:34 pm Greg Brown wrote:
>>>>>> It is worth considering. Can you provide a patch that implements
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> proposed solution so we can take a look?
>
> <applicationUi.xml>


Mime
View raw message