it's an applet that gets painted every 10 o more seconds. So I think setOpacity isn't so expensive. (and ofcourse much easier) Any problem with that? (I mean the refresh is very sparse)
On Tuesday 07 October 2008 00:21:27 Zack Rusin wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2008 16:47:06 Rafael Fernández López wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > you can also call setOpacity on the QPainter directly, but that can > > > *very* slow and that above method is usually faster, and at worst the > > > same speed. > > > > Aaron explained it pretty well, and please, don't use setOpacity (as also > > Aaron did suggest). I want to put emphasis here... since setOpacity > > disables all the hardware acceleration (as Fredrik said: "the kiss of > > death"). > > I take your emphasis, headbutt it and fart in its face while its down. > > It's just so happens that Plasma's main platform is broken right now, but > due to its brokenness you're emphasizing that you need to make all other > systems that Plasma will be running on slower. > It's certainly ok to optimize for the main platform but have knowledge of > why you're doing so. > > setOpacity is bad only if you're working on an X11 system and are drawing > to a QPixmap or a QWidget. > If you're drawing to a qimage or any of the surfaces that use > QGLPaintEngine then not using setOpacity is insane and using the extra > composition is actually the slow path. Not to mention that drawing svg's on > +90% of X11 systems will be faster if done on a qimage and then blitted, > rather than drawn on a QWidget/QPixmap directly. > > z > > _______________________________________________ > Plasma-devel mailing list > Plasma-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
