[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: koffice/libs/flake/tests
From:       jaham () gmx ! net
Date:       2009-09-25 17:38:15
Message-ID: 200909251938.15615.jaham () gmx ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 25 September 2009 09:42:32 Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Friday 25. September 2009 06.18.33 Thorsten Zachmann wrote:
> > - it will no longer be possible to have something like the following:
> >   layer 1: shape 1, shape 2
> >   layer 2: shape 3, shape 4
> >   and the following order:
> >   shape 1
> >   shape 3
> >   shape 2
> >   shape 4
> >   which is possible right now and also allowed by the odf spec.
> 
> What does that mean, allowed by the odf spec?
> 
> I think its essential to have shapes keep in their layers and not have a
> shape shown on top of a shape in a layer above. I had the impression that
> this is a universal usage and design concept of layers.
> Do you agree with that?
> 
> So, I'd support fixing the painting order to respect the shape hierarchy.
> 
> The algoritm Jan described sounds a bit complex; I have the impression it
> can be fixed by just making the sorting method take the parent into
>  account. If you don't see what I have in mind, I can make a mockup of my
>  idea later.
> 

I don't think it is too complex, just a recursive function which gets a list 
of shapes to paint and when stumbling over a shape container calls itself with 
the containers child shapes.
But if you have a better idea to get the same result by sorting the list of 
shapes, i am all for it. The important thing is that it works.

Ciao Jan
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]