From: Diego Z. <za...@ce...> - 2001-02-12 15:08:05
|
Thomas, I see that you have changed usericons.c to store globicons in thumb_cache instead of pixmap_cache. Is there a particular reason for this? .DirIcon.png (and all other file icons, from MIME types, for example) are still stored in pixmap_cache, so that creates an inconsistency in my opinion. Also, globicons are not really thumbnails, they are icon pixmaps, so I think they do belong in pixmap_cache. Any thoughts? How I discovered it? Because my icon-scaling patch does not scale things from thumb_cache, only from pixmap_cache. So after updating to the latest CVS all my icons seemed really large :-) --Diego |
From: Thomas L. <ta...@ec...> - 2001-02-12 15:17:42
|
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 10:08:38AM -0500, Diego Zamboni wrote: > I see that you have changed usericons.c to store globicons in > thumb_cache instead of pixmap_cache. Is there a particular reason for > this? .DirIcon.png (and all other file icons, from MIME types, for > example) are still stored in pixmap_cache, so that creates an > inconsistency in my opinion. Also, globicons are not really thumbnails, > they are icon pixmaps, so I think they do belong in pixmap_cache. > > Any thoughts? > > How I discovered it? Because my icon-scaling patch does not scale things from > thumb_cache, only from pixmap_cache. So after updating to the latest CVS all > my icons seemed really large :-) Well, I just thought I'd use thumb_cache as an easier way to do the icon scaling (since it scales them anyway). If they look too big, we probably just need to shrink the thumbs scaling size (presumably, thumbs look too big too?). And (before anyone complains that the thumbs are already too small), we'd better put in a larger display style... I only did it for globicons because that's the most likely one for a naive user to change. In the end, scaling for everything is probably a good idea, though... -- Thomas Leonard http://rox.sourceforge.net ta...@ec... ta...@us... |