U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Status & Roadmap

Authors & License

Funding Ultimate++

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Developing U++ » U++ Developers corner » Should we double-buffer by default?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Return to the default flat view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: Should we double-buffer by default? [message #4071 is a reply to message #4070]

Wed, 19 July 2006 11:47

mirek is currently offline

mirek
Messages: 14261
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

Attempt to describe sibling Ctrl intersection problem:

You have opaque Ctrl (can be painted unbuffered) which is intersected by next sibling transparent Ctrl (other part of this sibling Ctrl is above either parent Ctrl or worse, can be above ANOTHER opaque sibling).

Now the correct appearance should be the same as if you paint everything from the first child to the last, doing the same for childs of childs etc... Means next sibling Ctrl should be painted over our opaque Ctrl. Note that you want to backpaint this transparent Ctrl.

This was in U++ (in old and monday/thuesday versions) solved by scanning for all transparent (or non-opaque) areas and back-painting them whith all "bellow" Ctrls (including opaque). The trouble of this approach is that some areas get painted more times.

Mirek

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

[Message index]

		Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Tue, 18 July 2006 15:23
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Tue, 18 July 2006 15:31
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Tue, 18 July 2006 15:56
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Tue, 18 July 2006 16:36
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Tue, 18 July 2006 23:43
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Tue, 18 July 2006 23:57
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 00:42
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Wed, 19 July 2006 08:09
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Wed, 19 July 2006 08:34
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 09:01
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Wed, 19 July 2006 10:09
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 11:01
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Wed, 19 July 2006 11:18
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 11:47
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: unodgs on Wed, 19 July 2006 16:25
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 16:43
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: fudadmin on Wed, 19 July 2006 17:59
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 18:56
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: fudadmin on Wed, 19 July 2006 19:23
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Wed, 19 July 2006 21:14
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: fudadmin on Fri, 21 July 2006 04:52
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Fri, 21 July 2006 10:44
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mirek on Fri, 21 July 2006 12:10
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: fudadmin on Wed, 19 July 2006 19:38
		Re: Should we double-buffer by default? By: mr_ped on Wed, 19 July 2006 15:04

Previous Topic:	let's discuss new Draw principles and problems...
Next Topic:	A list of SQL dialects to support (eventually)..

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Sun Jun 08 22:17:53 CEST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04436 seconds