Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upAdditional functions for `CGImage` and `CGDataProvider` #219
Conversation
|
@bors-servo r+ |
|
|
bors-servo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 29, 2018
Additional functions for `CGImage` and `CGDataProvider` 1. Adds a possibility to construct a CGImage from a given provider. I don't know if it's the most optimal way to implement it and if it is safe, but it would be nice to wrap this function somehow, that was the first attempt to do it. 2. Adds some rendring intent constants. 3. Adds a function which allows to create a data provider from a slice. This is highly unsafe, that's why I marked it with unsafe. And I'm not sure if it is the best way to do this. Perhaps the one can store something like `Option<slice>` in the data provider, but in this case the provider will get some lifetime parameter (and we have to update the foreign type definition). I'm not sure that having slice parameter and a lifetime would make it 100% safe though, because when we're passing a data provider ref to some FFI, they could theoretically retain a data provider (or the image which uses the data provider), expecting that the data inside the data provider lives long enough. Probably the only "really safe" way to manage the data provider data is the one which is currently available (via `Arc<Vec<u8>>`), but this limitation of having `Arc<Vec<u8>>` may be very ineffective in some sort of appliations, so for instance in my case I had to add the additional "constructor" to allow creation of unsafe data provider and I guarantee the safety in my code by some other means. <!-- Reviewable:start --> --- This change is [<img src="https://reviewable.io/review_button.svg" height="34" align="absmiddle" alt="Reviewable"/>](https://reviewable.io/reviews/servo/core-foundation-rs/219) <!-- Reviewable:end -->
|
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
application-developer-DA commentedMay 28, 2018
•
edited by larsbergstrom
Option<slice>in the data provider, but in this case the provider will get some lifetime parameter (and we have to update the foreign type definition). I'm not sure that having slice parameter and a lifetime would make it 100% safe though, because when we're passing a data provider ref to some FFI, they could theoretically retain a data provider (or the image which uses the data provider), expecting that the data inside the data provider lives long enough. Probably the only "really safe" way to manage the data provider data is the one which is currently available (viaArc<Vec<u8>>), but this limitation of havingArc<Vec<u8>>may be very ineffective in some sort of appliations, so for instance in my case I had to add the additional "constructor" to allow creation of unsafe data provider and I guarantee the safety in my code by some other means.This change is