Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: multifont?
From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:14:27 -0800
On 10 February 2010 20:42, Thomas Martitz
> 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
> 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
> 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).
> Best regards.
Don't worry, it wil be usable in plugins (although imo they shouldn't
require fonts). I've just uploaded a new version which lets you set a
different UI fonr for remote LCD's
Received on 2010-02-11