Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: multifont?
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:42:11 +0100
On 10.02.2010 23:35, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
> OK, this was talked about a bit in IRC today but I want to get more of
> an answer (the topic came to a halt :p )
> I think everyone agrees that having a single buffer to hold as many
> fonts as the user wants (up to a reasonable number) is the best way to
> go, but this has been the case for as long as I can remember and
> nothing has happened.
> I now have a patch which works and is almost finished, but it uses
> separate buffers for each font (coming from the skin buffer, not new
> buffers) which I feel is a good enough solution until someone comes
> along and does the work to make it all into one buffer.
> So here is the question. Is there enough opposition to going about it
> this way (separate buffers for each font) that someone will put up
> their hand and do the work so its done properly? Or are we happy to
> have this "good enough" solution for the time being?
> This "good enough" version by the way is in no way hacky or anything,
> its just not the best solution. (FS#10984 by the way)
To be honest, I'm not the greatest fan of this implementation, although
it's way better than the original one (things like the skin buffer
didn't exist back then).
As noted, a single buffer would perform best. But let's be serious,
nobody is going to look at this in a reasonable time. Multifont is a
much-asked feature (in fact, it's almost required on targets with a
remote), even asked by devs which dislike JdGordon's way (like me and
amiconn). But I would really love to see it in instead of waiting for
the correct way another 3 years.
We must remind that - if it happens that the skin buffer is resonably
resizable (by automatically adjusting and/or user setting - I said I
would like to have a look at the former) this way is good enough, as it
doesn't have a penalty for the ones that don't use it (the originial
patch had this).
Ultimatively, I think it should go in. BUT, I would like to see a way
for plugins to make use of it. "Bad" Multifont for themes only - I'm not
sure if that's worth it. (IMO yes, because I like theming, but I can
imagine there're a plenty of voices against).
Received on 2010-02-11