Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: the UI viewport logic.. someone please help my understanding?
Re: the UI viewport logic.. someone please help my understanding?
Jonathan Gordon schrieb:
> 2009/10/28 Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>:
>> Jonathan Gordon schrieb:
>>> OK try this,,,
>>> 1) sbs are intended to be completly seperate to themes
>>> 2) a wps is also sort of independant from themes, BUT is made to work with
>>> a sbs
>>> 3) THE *only* time that the Vi is taken into account is in the wps
>>> (which can draw anywhere it likes anyway?
>>> So, get rid of Vi, everything it does now can be done using the
>>> setting... *and* we can make it stupidly simple so you cant accidently
>>> load a sbs without a viewport setup. after the sbs is loaded it would
>>> clear the whole screen, draw once, and stick a crosshair on the screen
>>> so the user can draw the viewport where the UI area should go.
>> That can't work. sbs is independent of themes. But the UI viewport is not
>> part of the sbs at all. And the WPS cannot draw where it likes, since the
>> default viewport is always active (and maximized).
>> Using the UI vp for skins is mixing parts which simply do not belong
>> /me wonders why JdGordon sees problems when there's none.
>> Best regards.
> You said yourself that the ui vp and the sbs are totally seperate...
> then how on earth can there be any reason for the Vi tag? and of
> course the wps can draw whereever it wants...
Because the %Vi is a property of a sbs, and the UI vp is something
I want those separate because there's a need for separation. A number of
screens ignore the UI vp and want everything (but still want statusbar).
For example the USB screen, or (hopefully soon) dozens of plugins, and
of course for the default viewport of the WPS (which is simply not
supposed to be bound within the UI vp!).
You simply want to remove flexibility and freedom to allow other parts
to be independent of the lists viewport. And of course mix create
interdependencies between skins and themes.
And for what? The entire %Vi handling is less than 10 lines of code.
> Now can you see that Vi is redundant?
Received on 2009-10-28
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew