Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi all, Regina,

So the issue seems to be that the original proposal is quite a few years old, and that meanwhile the Writer implementation has already been extended. - the Writer implementation already supports rotation, and double-precision bounding box calculations is prepared (so can be used but is of course not adapted) - has the  bounding box updates done when properties change - support for drawinglayer fill attributes - and (that's the  strongest argument) has all the interactions plugged into Writer's view code It doesn't make too much sense to use an SdrObject then instead. We could 'artificially' do so, reference it from SW frames & render it.

The problems are manifold:
- The Items involved are just in different places in the models
- The Item hierarchy in SW for frames is different (there is some 'parent' fame, additionally) - The adaption of the frame's dimensions to the rotation, it's reaction to that and e.g. text floating around *has* to be done at he SW frame anyways - A potential SdrGrafObj would have to be rendered by Frame's Paint (artificially) and not by SW's DrawingLayer paint (has own Z-Order, heaven/hell does not fit to frames, etc...)

So I would not propose to use a SdrGrafObj/SdrObject directly. What makes sense indeed is to use the same render pipeline. This is already mainly done, the rendering of an SdrGrafObj/GraphicObject in SW is already using common code in SW and elsewhere - by using primitives. In SW currently by making a small 'excursion' to  Primitives and PrimitiveRenderer when a GraphicObject has to be painted, as part of the regular 'Paint' (due to SW repaint still not being adapted to Primitive rendering). That guarantees also same output to e.g. PDF export when recording the Primitive paint as metafile actions.

That means the access to the attribution, creation of Primitives is slightly different (there are helper classes AFAIR e.g. for crop stuff), but the Primitives used are the same and get rendered uniformly.

What is missing is directly adding e.g. FrameBorder attributes to Primitives to create for that what is needed. This can be done, FrameBorder stuff is implemented as Primitives and decompositions already (and used for all three Table-Implementations we have, despite different models).

It should *not* be done in general for SdrGrafObj - that brings us in the situation that you might have a FrameStyle AND a dashed line at the same time - that might be technically solvable, but would combine the already tricky FrameStyle decompositions with doing it additionally dashed - nothing we should try to achieve from my POV. Does that combination even have a used case in reality..?

It is better and technically no problem to stick the needed Primitives together like Lego - that's what they are designed for.

Still, the actual rendering code in drawinglayer should be expanded to support Writer borders, and then be used from the Writer image implementation, too. What is then technically desirable I guess, is to continue with nominally two image *core* implementations for Writer and the rest (due to gui interactions), but consolidate the attributes (so we're supporting the same features everywhere - dashes for Writer borders, double/multi-line borders for draw/impress), use the same rendering code for fills and borders, and keep the Writer frame / SdrGrafObj as gutted façade. Which would be essentially a modified option A.

Just my 2ct, HTH!

Regards,

Armin

On 5/8/22 14:19, Regina Henschel wrote:
Hi Thorsten,

Thorsten Behrens schrieb am 07.05.2022 um 22:46:
I understand it so, that the item 'extract Writer border rendering & frame
special code' would be a step for goal A, whereas items in regard to
'rotated images support' would be a step for goal B.

Don't quite understand the second part - since obviously draw images
can be easily rotated?

The tender proposal contains,
"several attempts, current status (90-degree rotations) is a half-house. Rotation issue properly fixed by Armin in 6.0"
and,
"Relevant meta bug: Regressions from rotated images support in 6.0 (has 8 open bugs, having 12 duplicates total --Kelemeng (talk) 2022-03-07T16:58:16 (UTC) )"
which is https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147763

If we agree on goal A - and I support that - it would be wasted money to include fixes for these Writer-image rotation bugs in the tender.

What should happen with the current implementation of rotating Writer-images?

Kind regards,
Regina






--
Armin Le Grand

Senior Software Engineer FLOSS
–––
allotropia software GmbH
Flachsland 10
22083 Hamburg
Germany
–––
armin.le.grand.extern@allotropia.de
https://www.allotropia.de
–––
Registered office: Hamburg, Germany
Registration court Hamburg, HRB 165405
Managing director: Thorsten Behrens
VAT-ID: DE 335606919
---


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.