On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:02:36 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:02:36 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:02:36 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:02:36 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 23:02:36 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:41:55 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>>> we will violate the max constraint if we snap to a larger value.
>>
>> Well, it's inherently an over-constrained problem. Conceptually, though,
>> this does not violate the constraint. When snap-to-pixel is enabled, all
>> values, inc
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:22:30 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 16:53:41 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ResizeHelper.java
>> line 77:
>>
>>> 75: double cmin = snapCeil(c.getMinWidth()); // always
>>> honor min width!
>>> 76: double cmax = sn
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 20:22:30 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:41:23 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:41:23 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:37:28 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> we will violate the max constraint if we snap to a larger value.
>>
>> so for the max constraint, we should `snapInnerSpace()` which calls the
>> private (?) `Region.snapPortionX()`.
>
>> we will violate the max constraint if we snap
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:07:55 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> we will violate the max constraint if we snap to a larger value.
Well, it's inherently an over-constrained problem. Conceptually, though, this
does not violate the constraint. When snap-to-pixel is enabled, all values,
including min and
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:38:24 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 39 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into 8299753.resize
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/m
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:41:23 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:21:57 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:21:57 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:21:57 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:39:25 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:39:25 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 15:29:45 GMT, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> snapInnerSpace method.
The main idea is to handle the case when computing snapped coordinates within
the unsnapped container. Granted, this is somewhat unusual case, so I am ok
with using simple rounding here.
FYI, I've added Page ->
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 20:31:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 00:23:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> I agree with John that a layout algorithm that uses incremental calculations
>> will always be flawed in principle. The correct approach is to store the
>> initial configuration, and then for each configuration change, go back to
>> the
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 05:38:35 GMT, Karthik P K wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important to
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 20:31:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 12:53:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> My observation is that this algorithm seems unable to provide a proper user
> resizing experience as it seems to discard important information it would
> need to do so.
please elaborate, or point to a specific problem. It is entirely pos
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:23:29 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> @hjohn would you mind taking a look at this? using the ideas from your
> SpaceDistributor
Will take a look this weekend
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1156#issuecomment-1614422355
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to no
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:06:30 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:47:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 22:47:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>>
>> It is important
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> Removed earlier manual tester in favor of the monkey tester.
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> us
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 15:31:40 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user i
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 05:38:35 GMT, Karthik P K wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> review comments
>
> Left a inline comment.
> Otherwise looks good to me
@karthikpandelu @hjohn @kevinrushforth could
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:50:39 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 19:30:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user i
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 00:23:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> I agree with John that a layout algorithm that uses incremental calculations
>> will always be flawed in principle. The correct approach is to store the
>> initial configuration, and then for each configuration change, go back to
>> the
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 20:31:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains ten additional
>> commi
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 20:31:09 GMT, Michael Strauß wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains ten additional
>> commi
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 19:45:39 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains ten additional
>> commit
On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 19:30:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user i
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 12:40:17 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> review comments
>
> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ResizeHelper.java
> line 125:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 12:11:56 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> review comments
>
> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ResizeHelper.java
> line 58:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2023 12:53:05 GMT, John Hendrikx wrote:
> My observation is that this algorithm seems unable to provide a proper user
> resizing experience as it seems to discard important information it would
> need to do so.
please elaborate, or point to a specific problem. It is entirely pos
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:45:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 05:38:03 GMT, Karthik P K wrote:
>> Andy Goryachev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> review comments
>
> modules/javafx.controls/src/main/java/com/sun/javafx/scene/control/ResizeHelper.java
> line 112:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 18:23:29 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> @hjohn would you mind taking a look at this? using the ideas from your
> SpaceDistributor
Will take a look this weekend
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1156#issuecomment-1614422355
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:45:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user
On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 15:45:21 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
>> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
>> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>>
>> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
>> user
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in unsnapped coordinates, they are converted to snapped values,
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in un
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:38:00 GMT, Andy Goryachev wrote:
> Modified the resize algorithm to work well with fractional scale, thanks for
> deeper understanding of the problem thanks to @hjohn and @mstr2 .
>
> It is important to note that even though the constraints are given by the
> user in un
77 matches
Mail list logo
