OS2 World.Com Forum

Subject  :  Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  21 Dec, 2005 on 19:49
Supporting thread for the Interface InnoTek's font-engine bounty.

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  30 Dec, 2005 on 01:27
Hi

I just wrote a Rexx script that does this thanks to the sputilities found on Hobbes. You can drag and drop an .exe on it and it will add it to the registry than open the program and it will let you uninstall after closing the program if necessary. If you drop an installed program on it will give you the option of uninstalling. Warning this is my first Rexx script that uses functions. It also works from commandline. It isn't everything the requester wanted but if anyone wants to try it, I email it to you. I may upload it to hobbes when and if I get the it to use list files.

Email is ygk at qwest dot net

Thanks

PS: the present bounty is probably slightly more than I deserve.


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  30 Dec, 2005 on 18:10
Folks,

I wanted to wait a while before announcing something, but - sigh - okay: I'm currently doing a GUI-based program for this purpose.
It will allow you to add, delete, activate/deacticate and test applications. In addition, you can do things like add programs from the list of running processes or by browsing your disk(s). I exepect the program's first version to be ready in a week (in best case) because I'm currently setting up a new network for a customer that needs to be 100% ready and stable in the first week of January 2006. So there's not much time left right now.
Just to let you know: I'm doing something - it's not finished yet - no need for a bounty.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  30 Dec, 2005 on 18:14
I created a DLL that has all the required functions to interface with the registry settings of the font engine.
(detectFontEngine, enable/disableFontEngine, enable/disableHinting, enable/disableAntiAliasing, enable/disableSubPixelRendering, enable/disableApplication, add/deleteApplication...)

This DLL uses exports in the OS/2 REGISTRY.DLL.

Any GUI designer can use this DLL to build a GUI on top of it. (the DLL itself is written in C)

Let me know if there is any interest.


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  31 Dec, 2005 on 04:13
Hi Gregg, Warpcafe!

Oh, well... fortunately I was at the beginning stages of development... :-/

I was still implementing the rexx dll interface to the registry functions, and now I discover there are TWO already implemented!

Well, I guess I'll have time for something else..

Warpcafe, can't wait for your program!!

Thankyou, Bye

Cris


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  31 Dec, 2005 on 13:44
Hi folks,

well, you see... that rexx Stuff is basically some kind of "workaround". That type of task actually should be done via the WPS or an extension to it. Or like xworkplace handles hotkeys or whatever... but I can't do it in rexx.

The program is called Feffer ("Front-End For Font Engine Registry"). And it's done in DrDialog and uses sputils (of course...). At a later stage (if more than two people find it useful...<g> ) I'll add more options and maybe a more decent GUI, but for now it only does the basic stuff.
It doesn't support the additional stuff like Hinting and the other flags. Subject to user feedback... but let's face the truth: The first shot is not even finished yet.

(Gotta leave now - I'm in hurry to set up 6 xp clients to access a Windows SBS 2003... that really hurts, but I need the money...)

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  31 Dec, 2005 on 14:20
Well, my DLL cannot be called from REXX programs. So to utilize the DLL, one would have to write the front end in C or Pascal.

I will add a bit of documentation to the function calls, and then upload it together with a very small command line test program to hobbes.

At the moment, I doubt that I will be able to create a nice GUI, but with the DLL, basically anybody could write one.


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  31 Dec, 2005 on 16:05
Folks,

even if my GUI program will serve the needs... there is one thing missing from it: The ability to use it in a os/2 commandline!
Imagine for example one tries to add "wps.exe" to the list of supported programs... and then things get weird with the WPS locking up. What now? One would need a VIO version that can be used to (at least) disable the ft2lib engine (or one of the applications).

So no need to give up your programming!
Maybe you'll find my program not suited - why not try something else? Different users might prefer different programs anyway...

Keep going! At least we'll have a choice instead of nothing at all...

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  02 Jan, 2006 on 17:23

warpcafe (31 Dec, 2005 16:05):
Folks,

even if my GUI program will serve the needs... there is one thing missing from it: The ability to use it in a os/2 commandline!
Imagine for example one tries to add "wps.exe" to the list of supported programs... and then things get weird with the WPS locking up. What now? One would need a VIO version that can be used to (at least) disable the ft2lib engine (or one of the applications).



When you are done with a first test version of your GUI application, let me know what the command line application needs to be able to do, and I will create a little application that will do exactly that.

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  03 Jan, 2006 on 23:33
Hi

Well I got my script to work well enough for my purposes but it is a very long way from "prime time". I see from the posts that programer much better than I are working on this so I will await the outcome of their labors. If anyone needs someone to do some testing let me know. Thanks

Gregg


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  04 Jan, 2006 on 00:17
Folks,

@Gregg: So you assume me (amongst others) to be a better programmer than you?! You'll better wait to see what's coming out of it...
I'ld be glad to have someone test the stuff. And I need feedback for things that might be useless, useful or mandatory features - there's one or more things that I feel a little "clueless" about - but more on that in detail later once you see the program. (I guess next week, there'll be a first prototype...)

@Warp5: Depending on what comes out of the feedback and requested functions, there's quite some stuff that your commandline-version could do. But let's see what the "final" program will be like - maybe you can come up with some ideas once you see how it is intended to "work"...

Thanks for your help and interest. It's definetly appreciated!!

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  07 Jan, 2006 on 13:26
I have uploaded my DLL (feconfig1.zip) to hobbes. Currently in "incoming" later in "/pub/os2/dev/dll". (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/h-search?key=feconfig)

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  black-n-blue-marx gregory.marx@verizon.net
Date  :  07 Jan, 2006 on 18:51
Wow! When I made the original suggestion I never thought many people would think it was a good idea. Especially since it is so easy to manually add the proper KEY to the registry.

I just thought it took too much time, when wanting to add and test a bunch of apps. Not to mention boring to boot!

Anyway, I'm looking forward to trying some of the applets/utils being talked about here.

Thanks,
Gregory L. Marx


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  17 Jan, 2006 on 17:25
Folks,

I'm almost done with my first prototype - all that's left is writing back the data to the registry using spregistry() from the sputils.dll (which I used successfully for reading BTW).

And that's where I'm stuck: When I try to write a dword value to the registry, it always ends up as "string" when I check with regedit2. Hmmm.
Any ideas what I might be doing wrong? I used whatever method I could imagine, even weird ones, even with using spD2X() but all in vain... it's nothing but strings. Stupid.

Does someone know how to write a DWORD with that function?

TIA
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  17 Jan, 2006 on 21:18
Hold it! Hold it!

I already got a reply from Steven Levin from the yahoo!group "guiobjectrexx" where I've posted the question as well. He told me to read the manual for the sputils.dll again ... and opened my eyes: Although I've read the syntax part over and over, I missed out the one significant parameter... okay, seems that the problem is solved. I'll see if I can finish a first pre-beta tomorrow...

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  18 Jan, 2006 on 17:19
Here it is!

I've attached the first prototype of feffer for you. It requires the sputils package from hobbes (see included readme for details).
Please do not upload this to hobbes, as I want to add a "good" readme along with legal stuff and so on. Besides, it might require some beta testing before it can go public: Up to you.
Have fun with it.

And please let me know what you think: What you miss, what you don't need and what can be improved...

BTW: During testing I added Embellish and even feffer itself. Feffer seems to work with ft2lib supported, while embellish is unable to draw the directory listbox when ft2lib support is enabled. At least here.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 09:09
I just tested it, and it works!
From the "future plans" in the readme, I would say doing the localization NOW would be a good idea, as it will decrease the number of required changes in the future!

Besides that, I thought about your "export a list of working application" idea. That sounds pretty good! (like the Odin application database) Actually, it would be even better, if this data could be transfered to a server in the internet by the program itself! So that all people can see what applications have been tested with the font engine. (and could even import "all of them" to their local registry)

How does that sound?


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 12:20

black-n-blue-marx (07 Jan, 2006 18:51):
Wow! When I made the original suggestion I never thought many people would think it was a good idea. Especially since it is so easy to manually add the proper KEY to the registry.

I just thought it took too much time, when wanting to add and test a bunch of apps. Not to mention boring to boot!

Anyway, I'm looking forward to trying some of the applets/utils being talked about here.

Thanks,
Gregory L. Marx



Just a short update regarding the font engine bounty.

It looks like this bounty will soon be closed and we then need you (Gregory L. Marx) to be part of to verifiy that what is suggested as a solution meets the criteras. Also I tried to sent you an e-mail, but it bounced.

Also to be mentioned is that OS2 User Group Sweden has sponsored this bounty with
100 USD.

Regards,
Kim Haverblad


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 12:46

Kim (19 Jan, 2006 12:20):
Also to be mentioned is that OS2 User Group Sweden has sponsored this bounty with
100 USD.

Huh?
Now, when did THAT happen?
As I already said, I don't feel like being entitled to claim for a bounty - however, I'ld be pleased to "participate" in that. You should make sure that all participants who contributed will get something in return: Robert for his library (which in contrast to my rexx program can be used for WPS-extending "features"), and also that VIO-based program which suits perfectly the need for handling the ft2lib-stuff from commandline - like when booting with Alt-F1 to a command line in order to "repair" stuff.

Next step on my list (besides bug fixing if someone tells me about a bug) is to load all texts from a file in order to provide a base for localizing feffer to other languages and to facilitate the correction of typos without the need for recompilation... all possible pictures/icons will also find their way into a single dll.
This will be release 0.9.3 which will also be posted to hobbes, but I can't tell how soon it'll be ready. For 0.9.4 I'll hopefully have enough feedback then to determine how to rework the "test" function checks to provide a better "workflow" in the sense of the user.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 13:20
Fair enought I think that something can be worked out!

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 14:43
I just tried feffer. It seems to work fine. I did find one problem which is related to a change Innotek made in the 2.60 beta which is the version I am using. They changed the location of the registry keys for the programs they install by default. This means that feffer can't change these programs or as in my case any other programs that were added at the new registry site. Below is the relavent portion of the 2.60 beta readme. Thanks for creating this great little program.


Gregg


From Innotek readme for the font engine 2.60 beta:
Section 5.1

All configuration data is stored in the OS/2 registry
and can be edited using the OS/2 Registry Editor
(regedit2.exe). The reason for using the registry
instead of e.g. OS2.INI is the much higher flexibility
of the registry (hierachical organization) compared to
the limited OS2.INI format. The configuration data is
stored below the key

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\InnoTek\InnoTek Font Engine

or when choosing the system registry during installation
below the following key

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\InnoTek\InnoTek Font Engine

Note that if the application key exists below the local
machine registry tree, the configuration will always be
loaded from there and possible settings in the current
user section of the registry will be ignored.


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 21:17
Gregg,

okay - thanks a lot for the info. I didn't know there was a newer (beta) version out. But this change is very welcome, because - frankly - it didn't make much sense to me that they stored the stuff in the user-part of the registry.
A system-level driver like ft2lib needs to be stored in the HKLM part, not the user part.
Strange anyway: The new method on the other hand does not allow "user preferences" overriding a system default. Hm. Likely to change in the future.

Now for feffer, this means that the optimal solution would be to retrieve the ft2lib version from the dll. Unfortunately, I don't know of any rexx-callable dll to the appropriate API (in windows, it's the versioninfo() IIRC, part of the advapi pack). I'm pretty sure that os/2 has a counterpart to that, but... hmm... maybe this could be worth another bounty?

Anyway - the only thing I might do now is either make the "base registry tree" used by feffer configurable (either by config file/ini file or by an option dialog) or try to implement a "manual" way of scanning the dll file to retrieve the version.

Alternatively, I could even think of a routine that is called during a possible installation script for feffer which determines the ft2lib version ONCE and configures feffer accordingly.

Which one would you prefer?
Or do you think, a hardcoded "alternate" version of feffer is a better choice until we find a decent solution?

If instead we make this another bounty (rexx-interface to the advapi functions) all (rexx) programmers would benefit from it.

Let me know what you think please.
BTW: Is that new beta from Innotek publicly available (can it be downloaded) or is it a "closed" beta available only to certain users?
I can't remember any announcement for this...

Thanks again for the info...

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  19 Jan, 2006 on 21:23
Oh, something I forgot to mention:

The system registry tree is already existing even with my older version of ft2lib of course. I could also implement a simple "mirror" which updates BOTH parts simultaneously (user and system).
This is not quite the way it should be done because of the principles of the user/system registry, but doesn't have great impact on multiuser-environments in my mind (as far as such environments exist in os/2 by now): The only drawback would be, that a user cannot make settings that differ from the system-wide settings.

Comments?

Cheers
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  20 Jan, 2006 on 06:22
Thomas

I think it might be simpler to check the default install to determine if 2.60 is installed. Unless someone has played with the registry and deleted keys a check for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\InnoTek\InnoTek Font Engine\applications\firefox.exe should verify that version 2.60 is being used since the earlier versions don't use the local machine key and this could then triger code to check both local machine and current user for applications and or settings with all additions or changes to duplicate entries defaulting to local machine if it is present. While this is probably not the cleanist solution it should work fine and if you are concerned it could be corrupted a check for all the defaults ie just the Local machines..."applications" key being present (which I don't believe existed prior to 2.60 (should be checked)) could verify the version level. These keys can be easily checked with sputils so they don't require anything new. I would be happy to test a version using this logic to verify that it works. Again thank you for your efforts on this project

Gregg


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  20 Jan, 2006 on 12:37
Warpcafe,
you could simply invoke "bldlevel" on ft2lib.dll and redirect it into a file or a queue for later parsing. I've verified that ft2lib contains bldlevel information (at least the 2.60 beta).

I tried feffer both on a VirtualPC image of eCS1.2 and on my main system with eCS1.1. On the 1.1 system I have a problem: when starting feffer I get a DrRexx dialog box with an error registering one of the functions... as soon as I get home I'll post a screenshot, I don't remember the details now.

I find feffer useful and quite well done, thankyou!
I have only one "complaint" - feffer doesn't save the fonts that you drop on it. Maybe you could enhance it to include this.

I see that now the bounty starts to be interesting

Thankyou!
Bye

Cris

P.S. no, the beta is not closed. you can download the new beta from Innotek's website.


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  20 Jan, 2006 on 17:06

Cris (20 Jan, 2006 12:37):
I have only one "complaint" - feffer doesn't save the fonts that you drop on it. Maybe you could enhance it to include this.

Cris,

thanks for the bldlevel info. At least, this helps in finding out what possible solutions can be done. For the font problem: Yes, I know. Unfortunately, DrDialog doesn't provide common methods and the DnD-support for objects "outside" of DrDialog is quite bad... which means: I will have to save font (and color) information at the end and load it at startup. But your comment ist definitely RIGHT! A useful os/2 program should provide this.

As for the DrRexx dialog box... hm.. this MIGHT be due to a missing dll that sputils requires in order to access the registry. I remember something been said about that somewhere... need to look into it again.
If you could send me the screenshot, I'll investigate what it's about.

Thanks for the support!
Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  21 Jan, 2006 on 00:39
Warpcafe,
it is working now in both the eCS 1.2 and the eCS 1.1 boxes.
Don't know what I was doing wrong...

Thankyou!
Bye


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  abwillis abwillis@comcast.net
Date  :  21 Jan, 2006 on 05:14

warpcafe (18 Jan, 2006 17:19):
Here it is!

I've attached the first prototype of feffer for you. It requires the sputils package from hobbes (see included readme for details).


It brings up a window here that just scrolls a bunch of errors I can't follow and then it closes out. It may be related to my using OREXX.
Andy


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  21 Jan, 2006 on 10:49

abwillis (21 Jan, 2006 05:14):
It brings up a window here that just scrolls a bunch of errors I can't follow and then it closes out. It may be related to my using OREXX.
Andy

Hi Andy,
the fact that it brings up "a bunch" of messages most likely means that these errors are produced by the DrDialog runtime environment. I think you're right that it might has something to do with orexx.
I only use classic rexx here. Hmm. I know there is some script that can be used to switch from classis to orexx... I must give it a try I think. And I remember that there was a fix for something with DrDialog and orexx... must look for that again.
Thanks for the information, I'll check it out.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  21 Jan, 2006 on 13:38

Kim (19 Jan, 2006 13:1:
Also to be mentioned is that OS2 User Group Sweden has sponsored this bounty with
100 USD.



warpcafe:
You should make sure that all participants who contributed will get something in return: Robert for his library (which in contrast to my rexx program can be used for WPS-extending "features"), and also that VIO-based program which suits perfectly the need for handling the ft2lib-stuff from commandline - like when booting with Alt-F1 to a command line in order to "repair" stuff.


I don't deserve money for this either! However, if you want to do something good with the money, make it available to this years organizers of Warpstock Europe, or use it to finance a trip to Warpstock Europe for your Swedish users!

Robert


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  21 Jan, 2006 on 17:20

Warp5 (21 Jan, 2006 13:3:
However, if you want to do something good with the money, make it available to this years organizers of Warpstock Europe, or use it to finance a trip to Warpstock Europe for your Swedish users!
Robert

Good idea(s)...

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  22 Jan, 2006 on 03:08

abwillis (21 Jan, 2006 05:14):
It brings up a window here that just scrolls a bunch of errors I can't follow and then it closes out. It may be related to my using OREXX.
Andy

Andy,
I switched my pc to orexx and gave it a try. I also managed to find out where the error was. A stupid one that didn't show up if feffer was running in classic rexx... anyway. I recompiled the fixed version and attached it here to my post. There is nothing more or less in matters of features and it's not aware the newer beta version of ft2lib either - just a quick fix for object rexx... would you mind give it a try?

Cheers
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  abwillis abwillis@comcast.net
Date  :  23 Jan, 2006 on 00:24
It does appear to work but I do get an error box:
Syntax Error: Incorrect call to routine in:
Item = cnt_list.add(stem.i, gBmpNo)

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  23 Jan, 2006 on 12:07

abwillis (23 Jan, 2006 00:24):
It does appear to work but I do get an error box:
Syntax Error: Incorrect call to routine in:
Item = cnt_list.add(stem.i, gBmpNo)

Hi,
...are the two bitmaps present in the applications directory?
(This requirement will change in the near future)

Cheers
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  abwillis abwillis@comcast.net
Date  :  23 Jan, 2006 on 21:04
Your right, my mistake. I had had them there but then remormatted the drive and thought I had copied them back in but hadn't.
Andy

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  24 Jan, 2006 on 17:52
Folks,

I've attached a 0.9.3 version of feffer.
As a quick solution, I've added the possibility to supply a command-line parameter of " /HKLM" which will make that version of feffer use the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE part of the registry (for the "newer" ft2lib.dll).
If something else (or nothing) was supplied, nothing changes - feffer will use the HKEY_CURRENT_USER tree like before.
Note that this is NOT TESTED - please tell me if it works.
The attached ZIP only contains the new executable, which means that you'll need the two bitmaps from the previous version - sorry, I'm a bit constrained in matters of accessing my "project files" from where I am...

There's nothing new except this parameter. It's merely intended for users of the newer ft2lib so they can give a try to feffer as well. Have fun and let me know of the results (bugs, complaints, etc...)

----------------------------------------------------------
And now a quick note on the current development status of feffer:
I'm into version 0.9.4 now, starting to redo some parts from scratch. I have successfully pre-tested some routines for later incorporation. Among them there is:

- determination of the directories of libpath for searching the
ft2lib.dll and retrieving its versioninfo by "bldlevel"...
- check to see if I can get the font info, if a font was
"dropped" on the container or other parts
- a startup check for all required resources
- a splash screen at startup to make things look prettier and
to give credit to the bounty system at os/2world.com
- handmade routines to process win-style "ini" files
(those plain text files, they're quite comfortable for editing)

I'll check if I can get a "nice" idea for "prettier" dialogs and then will do the main work to get a new "GA beta" version for the public at hobbes. Might take a while, because I will need to do "paperwork" as well (the documentation stuff).

As soon as I'll have a "complete" english resource file ready, I'll post that too so people will be able to make their own localizations for feffer.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  25 Jan, 2006 on 01:56
Hi Warpcafe,
it would be nice if you could add a little counter of the registry keys below the list. Maybe it could be something like

t/e/d

where "t" stands for "total", "e" stands for "enabled", "d" stands for "disabled".

Thankyou!
Bye

Cris


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  25 Jan, 2006 on 11:41

Cris (25 Jan, 2006 01:56):
Hi Warpcafe,
it would be nice if you could add a little counter of the registry keys below the list. Maybe it could be something like

t/e/d

where "t" stands for "total", "e" stands for "enabled", "d" stands for "disabled".

Thankyou!
Bye

Cris


Cris,

good idea!
That again shows how "limited" a developers view sometimes is: I wouldn't have thought of that. But it's definitively a useful feature. Hmm... I'm thinking of a display string that can be configured similar to XWP's folder status bars...

I'll note that!

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  25 Jan, 2006 on 18:41
...and another status update:

Today, I successfully tested a helper application that "compiles" a string resource file (plain text) into a feffer ".msg" file. Along with that, I have tested the routine which reads the strings from the .msg file.
This means, that willing "translators" can translate the original string resource file and compile it into a localized .msg file. Feffer will then load the .msg file that matches your "LANG" setting environment variable (or another .msg file if that is selected differently in a later "options" dialog).

Cheers
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Warp5
Date  :  26 Jan, 2006 on 10:26
Some updates from me as well.
I attached to this post the first two command line utilities. One will enable the font engine, the other will disable it. If you like, you can test them. Please do not upload to any other server.
Once I have compiled all required utilities, I will refresh the feconfig1.zip file on hobbes. Thomas, you are of course free to include those utilities in your distribution and mention them in the readme!

PS: I could not attach the file to the post for whatever reason. Here is the URL:
http://warp5.dyndns.org/fecmd.zip


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  26 Jan, 2006 on 19:06
----------------------------------------------
I've attached a 0.9.3 version of feffer.
As a quick solution, I've added the possibility to supply a command-line parameter of " /HKLM" which will make that version of feffer use the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE part of the registry (for the "newer" ft2lib.dll).
If something else (or nothing) was supplied, nothing changes - feffer will use the HKEY_CURRENT_USER tree like before.
Note that this is NOT TESTED - please tell me if it works.
----------------------------------------------

I just tried this with and without the /HKLM. I get the following error message both ways. I'm using classic Rexx

SYNTAX ERROR: Incorrect call to routine in:
item = cnt_list.add(stem.i, gBmpNo) /* add application to container and save id in "item" */

Gregg


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  27 Jan, 2006 on 09:21

Gregg (26 Jan, 2006 19:0:
I just tried this with and without the /HKLM. I get the following error message both ways. I'm using classic Rexx

SYNTAX ERROR: Incorrect call to routine in:
item = cnt_list.add(stem.i, gBmpNo) /* add application to container and save id in "item" */
Gregg


Gregg,

...are the two bitmaps present in the directory where feffer.exe is installed?

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  27 Jan, 2006 on 14:27
The bitmaps had been deleted replacing them fixed this. Thanks. The program works fine with and without the switch. However since I have used multiple versions of the font engine I have programs under both keys and while "local machine" overrides "current user" I have some just in "current user". It would be nice if it would show both and indicate which ones in "current users" were overriden in "local machine".

Gregg


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  27 Jan, 2006 on 18:20
Hi Gregg,
I don't think that's the way it works.

"Note that if the application key exists below the local
machine registry tree, the configuration will always be
loaded from there and possible settings in the current
user section of the registry will be ignored."

I think it means that if it finds the "Innotek Font Engine" application in the LOCAL_MACHINE part, it completely ignores the CURRENT_USER part. It's not a per-app overriding IMO.

Bye

Cris


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  28 Jan, 2006 on 09:10
Hello,

well... there's various things that come together here.
First, if what Innoteks tells us is true, then they do not "behave" the right way. Under windows, the "default" is what is under the local machine tree and might be overrided by the HKEY_USERS\.default settings if they are present.
Next, the HKEY_CURRENT_USER (which is built dynamically from the HKEY_USER\nnn key of the logged-on user) overrides the .DEFAULT.

If you want a per-user setting, then basically the HKLM path should only store the installation path or the version number installed for the ft2lib. All "settings" types should be stored in user paths (for the named user) and will be loaded dynamically into the CURRENT_USER path once a user logs on.
Under Warp, we usually don't have that mechanism and that's why it's different I guess. But along with ODIN and security/2, things might look different. It's not easy to tell...

In fact, for me the only thing that counts is to know how the ft2lib loads its settings (= which path in the registry is used). Anyway, the future version of feffer will scan both parts of the registry and retrieve the ft2lib version.

It might then offer to "reorganize" the registry keys. This way, we'll have no problems with upgrading or downgrading the ft2lib. Perhaps I should talk with the innotek people about how they intend the ft2lib to work (now and in the future).

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  23 Feb, 2006 on 10:36
Curiuos but what is current status on this bounty; still open or are everybody happy with the provided code to solve the problem? If so, please then get together and claim the bounty and if you want to bounty to go to another project, event or what ever - just give us the details to handle your request. Or if not, closed, well then don't forget to claim the bounty when finalizing this project.

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Cris
Date  :  23 Feb, 2006 on 10:57
I'm also curious about the state of development.
I am very satisfied with Feffer 0.93, BTW.

Incidentally, I verified my assumptions regarding the registry usage by the font engine:

v2.40 is using the USER part only, and completely ignores the MACHINE part.
v2.60 beta is using the MACHINE part and DOES NOT fall back to the USER part unless the MACHINE part is _completely_ missing (i.e. the whole Innotek tree).

This is at least consistent with what they say in the docs.

Bye

Cris


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  05 Sep, 2006 on 12:03
Well, I'm asking here once again; are everybody happy with the work done here so we can 1) close the bounty 2) pay out the bounty money to either the people been involved or forward the money to another bounty, project or to any other organisation?

Please get together within this thread and make a bounty claim to let us know how what you guys wants to do.

Regards,
Kim Haverblad


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  05 Sep, 2006 on 13:34
Hi,

I am still trying to find some time to finish the 1.x GA version of the "new" feffer. In all, it will be mostly cosmetic improvements, localization features (NLS feature) and the ability to function with "both" versions of the InnoTek font engine.
Note that the current feffer versions were merely "feasibilty test" drops to see if it works. Okay - it works. Next on the list is a "real program" with docs and so on. And testing

The problem is time: I am preparing this years Warpstock Europe along with Roderick Klein and Roland Schmalenberg and this takes up a considerable amount of my spare time (which is not much yet).

I suggest that we should split up the bounty amongst everyone who has contributed whatsoever here. Personally, I want the bounty manager to keep "my" share for an upcoming bounty that I will suggest in the near future: An update to DrDialog that helps bringing up "neat GUIs" with Warp4 notebook style support and "transparent background" labels and maybe "real containers" that can have *real* background images instead of tricking around to get it done.

But anyway: With or without bounty, feffer will be continued as long as there is at least one person who finds it helpful regardless if Innotek one day will decide to include something equal/better with their font engines.

Greetings
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com
Date  :  05 Sep, 2006 on 15:48
This thread has been beneficial in and of itself. I had not realized the extent of the changes to the way the Registry was being used. I looked at the Mozilla code and found that for the MOZILLA_USE_EXTENDED_FT2LIB=T variable to work it had been relying on the HKCU existing. I have now updated it to use HKLM as well.

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Martin
Date  :  06 Sep, 2006 on 00:57
Hi

I just got a question about which open source license will Robert choose for this software.
And possible suggest a little readme.txt file explaining included with the files.

Martin


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  06 Sep, 2006 on 02:43

warpcafe (05 Sep, 2006 13:34):
Hi,

I am still trying to find some time to finish the 1.x GA version of the "new" feffer. In all, it will be mostly cosmetic improvements, localization features (NLS feature) and the ability to function with "both" versions of the InnoTek font engine.
Note that the current feffer versions were merely "feasibilty test" drops to see if it works. Okay - it works. Next on the list is a "real program" with docs and so on. And testing

The problem is time: I am preparing this years Warpstock Europe along with Roderick Klein and Roland Schmalenberg and this takes up a considerable amount of my spare time (which is not much yet).

I suggest that we should split up the bounty amongst everyone who has contributed whatsoever here. Personally, I want the bounty manager to keep "my" share for an upcoming bounty that I will suggest in the near future: An update to DrDialog that helps bringing up "neat GUIs" with Warp4 notebook style support and "transparent background" labels and maybe "real containers" that can have *real* background images instead of tricking around to get it done.

But anyway: With or without bounty, feffer will be continued as long as there is at least one person who finds it helpful regardless if Innotek one day will decide to include something equal/better with their font engines.

Greetings
Thomas



Thomas

I find the program very useful and think you should recieve the bounty. I hope to meet you at warpstock Europe as I plan to attend. As for splitting the bounty if you decise to do that I would prefer that you pick another bounty and contribute my share to that project.

Gregg


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  melf mikaelelf@os2ug.se
Date  :  06 Sep, 2006 on 09:51
Well just a comment. Haven't read this thread before, to much of programming for me. I really haven't understood that you could add the fontengine support to other applications than "the Mozillas" and Open Office. Now I tested Lucide, and got great improvement in the readability of pdf-documents. How nice it is with tiny functional programs!! Thanks!
_______________________________
modifying entry
Hrmm..I have made a misstake..It showed up that I had opened two different documents with different quality and the same content..that was the "great improvement" I so gladly reported. A little embaressing for me... Anyway I still like tiny functional programs and feffer is really that!
/Mikael

Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  06 Sep, 2006 on 21:11

Martin (06 Sep, 2006 00:57):
Hi

I just got a question about which open source license will Robert choose for this software.
And possible suggest a little readme.txt file explaining included with the files.

Martin


All code submitted for a bounty must be without any known intellectual property limitations. This is according to the rules that we have set up for the bounty system.

/Kim


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de
Date  :  19 Sep, 2006 on 11:51
Folks,

I think due to teh nature of this thread, it's the right place to ask a few questions regarding the ft2lib version 2.60:

- Can someone report about bugs with that version?
- Is it faster or better memory-optimised than 2.40?
- In general: Is 2.60 "better" than 2.40?

Thanks in advance!
Thomas


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Gregg
Date  :  19 Sep, 2006 on 23:43

warpcafe (19 Sep, 2006 11:51):
Folks,

I think due to teh nature of this thread, it's the right place to ask a few questions regarding the ft2lib version 2.60:

- Can someone report about bugs with that version?
- Is it faster or better memory-optimised than 2.40?
- In general: Is 2.60 "better" than 2.40?

Thanks in advance!

Below is a list of changes since 2.40 from the innotek readme file. I have found that more application work with 2.60 as compared to 2.40. I do occasionally see fonts change size some what with scrolling but I am not sure that is new with 2.60 and it isn't consistenly reproducible (might be a video driver isssue)

Gregg

7. List of Changes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2005-02-01: Release 2.60 Beta 1 Build 50

- migrated to InnoTek GCC 3.3

- updated to Freetype 2.1.9 level

- added 'light' rendering mode

- fixed several small memory leaks

- numerous other fixes

2004-07-08: Release 2.50 Build 45

- allow use of system registry (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE) instead
of user registry (HKEY_CURRENT_USER) for WorkSpace on-Demand
environments

- added supported for OS/2 bitmap fonts without MZ header

- font mapping fixes

- printing fixes

- fixed several small memory leaks

- numerous other fixes

Thomas



Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com
Date  :  20 Sep, 2006 on 20:53

warpcafe (19 Sep, 2006 11:51):
Folks,

I think due to teh nature of this thread, it's the right place to ask a few questions regarding the ft2lib version 2.60:

- Can someone report about bugs with that version?
- Is it faster or better memory-optimised than 2.40?
- In general: Is 2.60 "better" than 2.40?

Thanks in advance!
Thomas


In general it is "better". I have seen several reports on various lists and newsgroups of issues that were resolved by 2.60. Memory usage is listed as a fix.
Andy


Subject  :  Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine
Author  :  Kim
Date  :  19 May, 2007 on 23:55
This thread has been closed and will continue in the new forum.

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <www.ub2k.com>