|
Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 23 since: 02 Apr, 2003 |
|
41. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
last updated at 26 Jan, 2006 19:08 (1 times) ---------------------------------------------- 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 |
| Date: 26 Jan, 2006 on 19:06 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
42. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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 RexxSYNTAX 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 |
| Date: 27 Jan, 2006 on 09:21 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 23 since: 02 Apr, 2003 |
|
43. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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 |
| Date: 27 Jan, 2006 on 14:27 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 124 since: 20 Nov, 2003
 |
|
44. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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 |
| Date: 27 Jan, 2006 on 18:20 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
45. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
last updated at 28 Jan, 2006 09:11 (1 times) 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 |
| Date: 28 Jan, 2006 on 09:10 |
|
|
Team member in staff
       posts: 2128 since: 10 Dec, 2000
 |
 |
46. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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. |
| Date: 23 Feb, 2006 on 10:36 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 124 since: 20 Nov, 2003
 |
|
47. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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 |
| Date: 23 Feb, 2006 on 10:57 |
|
|
Team member in staff
       posts: 2128 since: 10 Dec, 2000
 |
 |
48. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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 |
| Date: 05 Sep, 2006 on 12:03 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
49. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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 |
| Date: 05 Sep, 2006 on 13:34 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 135 since: 21 Mar, 2003 |
|
50. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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. |
| Date: 05 Sep, 2006 on 15:48 |
|
|
Team member in admin
       posts: 535 since: 10 Dec, 2000
 |
|
51. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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 |
| Date: 06 Sep, 2006 on 00:57 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 23 since: 02 Apr, 2003 |
|
52. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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 |
| Date: 06 Sep, 2006 on 02:43 |
|
|
Premium member in staff
     posts: 212 since: 11 Apr, 2003
 |
|
53. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
last updated at 06 Sep, 2006 16:48 (2 times) 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
|
| Date: 06 Sep, 2006 on 09:51 |
|
|
Team member in staff
       posts: 2128 since: 10 Dec, 2000
 |
|
54. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
Martin (06 Sep, 2006 00:57): HiI 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 |
| Date: 06 Sep, 2006 on 21:11 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 350 since: 26 Nov, 2002
 |
|
55. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| 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 |
| Date: 19 Sep, 2006 on 11:51 |
|
|
Normal member in user
     posts: 23 since: 02 Apr, 2003 |
|
56. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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
|
| Date: 19 Sep, 2006 on 23:43 |
|
|
Premium member in user
     posts: 135 since: 21 Mar, 2003 |
|
57. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
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 |
| Date: 20 Sep, 2006 on 20:53 |
|
|
Team member in staff
       posts: 2128 since: 10 Dec, 2000
 |
 |
58. Re:Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| This thread has been closed and will continue in the new forum. |
| Date: 19 May, 2007 on 23:55 |
|
|
|
Interface InnoTek's font-engine |
|
|
| All times are CET+1. |
< Prev. | P. 1 2 3 | Next > |
|