Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] ImageBrushEx in 15063 #1179

Closed
h82258652 opened this issue May 23, 2017 · 13 comments
Closed

[Feature Request] ImageBrushEx in 15063 #1179

h82258652 opened this issue May 23, 2017 · 13 comments

Comments

@h82258652
Copy link
Contributor

h82258652 commented May 23, 2017

In 15063, we can extend brush (by XamlCompositionBrushBase). How about create a ImageBrushEx?
I create my own here: https://github.com/h82258652/Projects/blob/dev/Libraries/SoftwareKobo.Controls.ImageEx.Uwp.15063/ImageBrushEx.cs

@nmetulev
Copy link
Contributor

Interesting proposition, curious what others think. Could you create a uservoice for this and provide a bit more details?

@h82258652
Copy link
Contributor Author

@nmetulev
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks. :)

pulling in @hermitdave to the conversation

@JohnnyWestlake
Copy link
Contributor

Could probably be an extension of #1100 - that already creates an ImageBrush using the image cache internally for use with it's RoundedImage control

@hermitdave
Copy link
Contributor

Yes @JohnnyWestlake precisely my thoughts on this. We should just wrap and expose the brush from RoundedImageEx.

@hermitdave
Copy link
Contributor

Having looked at it further, I believe that in order to provide ImageEx Brush, we would need to ditch the shared code for ImageExBase. ImageExBrush would inherit from TileBrush and implement additional bits as needed.

Whilst this isn't difficult, I just want us to be on the same page.

@lucaasrojas
Copy link
Contributor

What's the current status of this issue?

@Kyaa-dost Kyaa-dost added the no-recent-activity 📉 Open Issues that require attention label Oct 2, 2019
@Kyaa-dost
Copy link
Contributor

@h82258652 what's the status on this?

@ghost ghost removed the no-recent-activity 📉 Open Issues that require attention label Dec 3, 2019
@h82258652
Copy link
Contributor Author

@h82258652 what's the status on this?

I don't know, it seems no one is handling this.

@michael-hawker
Copy link
Member

@Sergio0694 thoughts on how our existing ImageBlendBrush and the above would fit/work with your Pipeline brushes #3112?

@Sergio0694
Copy link
Member

This is (somewhat) already possible with the pipeline API, like so:

<Rectangle>
    <Rectangle.Fill>
        <brushes:PipelineBrush>
            <brushes:PipelineBrush.Effects>
                <effects:ImageEffect
                    Uri="/Assets/SomeImage.png"
                    DPIMode="DisplayDpi"/>
            </brushes:PipelineBrush.Effects>
        </brushes:PipelineBrush>
    </Rectangle.Fill>
</Rectangle>

It would definitely be possible to reuse the same internal APIs and expose a some brush type with also more properties on top. Or better yet, add more options directly to that ImageEffect type, so that those will be usable from pipelines as well. I mean, we could also do both 😄

This is basically what the updated brushes like the AcrylicBrush, BackdropInvertBrush etc. are doing anyway, they're just creating a pipeline behind the scenes, wrapping that in a more user friendly class. But it's still the same backend in all cases.

@Kyaa-dost
Copy link
Contributor

@h82258652 ⬆️

@michael-hawker
Copy link
Member

@Sergio0694 I guess the things missing in the Pipeline Brushes and the ImageBlendBrush in the toolkit would be the Alignment properties from @h82258652's example?

Would it make sense to try and rebase ImageBlendBrush on top of an ImageEffect that provide that functionality and add these extra capabilities?

@CommunityToolkit CommunityToolkit locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 1, 2022
@LalithaNadimpalli LalithaNadimpalli converted this issue into discussion #4699 Aug 1, 2022

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants