<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking <span dir="ltr"><jonas@sicking.cc></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Oliver Hunt <<a href="mailto:oliver@apple.com">oliver@apple.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:<br>
>> I'm not saying that the proposed API is bad. It just doesn't seem to<br>
>> solve the (seemingly most commonly requested) use case of<br>
>> rotating/scaling images. So if we want to solve those use cases we<br>
>> need to either come up with a separate API for that, or extend this<br>
>> proposal to solve that use case somehow.<br>
><br>
> Just for reference I think one thing that people are forgetting that there is a difference between<br>
> being computationally faster, and being more responsive.<br>
<br>
</div>As I mentioned in my email, if you look at the steps listed, enough of<br>
them happen *on the main thread* that you're spending far more of the<br>
main threads CPU cycles than you'd like. Possibly even more than doing<br>
all the resizing on the main thread.<br>
<br>
With the other improvements suggested by David things do definitely<br>
look different, but those are not in a proposal yet.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is the other scenario I mentioned, but I'll see what I can do about separately working up a proposal for adding those methods because they were next on my list to deal with. (fromBlob/load may be enough for this.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>dave</div><div><br></div></div>