| Summary: | Augment GeometryProvider infrastructure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Tools] GEF | Reporter: | Alexander Nyßen <nyssen> |
| Component: | GEF MVC | Assignee: | gef-inbox <gef-inbox> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | matthias.wienand |
| Version: | 0.2.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 4.0.0 / 3.11.0 (Neon) M4 | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
|
Description
Alexander Nyßen
Indeed, we could think of offering 4 different default providers: - GeometricBoundsProvider -> uses geometric bounds - VisualBoundsProvider -> uses layout bounds - GeometricOutlineProvider -> outline computed from 'pure' geometry - VisualOutlineProvider -> visual outline (includes stroke; could be computed by scaling geometric outline with the scale factor that corresponds to difference of geometric and layout bounds) As visual bounds are used to refer to bounds including effect and clip, it may be better to use 'geometric bounds' and 'shape bounds' to refer to the concepts we are dealing with here: - GeometricBoundsProvider (rectilinear geometric bounds) - GeometricOutlineProvider (tight geometric bounds) - ShapeBoundsProvider (rectilinear geometric bounds + stroke == layout bounds) - ShapeOutlineProvider (tight geometric bounds + stroke) I created/renamed the providers as suggested and adjusted the implementation and the bindings accordingly. The code is published on the master branch, therefore, I resolve this ticket as fixed for 3.11.0M4. |