- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:25:11 -0800
On Mar 12, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to >>> solve the (seemingly most commonly requested) use case of >>> rotating/scaling images. So if we want to solve those use cases we >>> need to either come up with a separate API for that, or extend this >>> proposal to solve that use case somehow. >> >> Just for reference I think one thing that people are forgetting >> that there is a difference between >> being computationally faster, and being more responsive. > > As I mentioned in my email, if you look at the steps listed, enough of > them happen *on the main thread* that you're spending far more of the > main threads CPU cycles than you'd like. Possibly even more than doing > all the resizing on the main thread. > > With the other improvements suggested by David things do definitely > look different, but those are not in a proposal yet. In general a copy is a fair bit faster than an image rotate or resize, though I don't know if it is faster enough for reasonable image sizes to matter. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 17:25:11 UTC