Two plugin-rework patches

[Ray Strode]

Hi,

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Charlie Brej <plymouth at brej.org> wrote:
> test.patch has some additional lines to the makefiles to allows the tests
> compile. (ply-list.c/h were needed whenever ply-logger was used and
> DPLYMOUTH_PLUGIN_PATH were needed by boot_splash_test)
Sounds good, please push.

> fade.patch is a review request as I am unsure about a couple things. It
> creates a new image data block with the fade being done by weighting the
> data from each image. This is then drawn on the screen.
Isn't image_fade() nothing more than:

/* Fill with the old frame at full opacity */
ply_image_buffer_fill_with_argb32_data (...,previous_frame_data, ...)

/* Blend the new frame OVER the old frame at the current fade percentage */
ply_image_buffer_file_with_argb32_data_at_opacity (..., frame_data, percentage);

?  If image_fade() doesn't add anything over doing those two lines,
then I guess I'd rather just have those two lines.

 Looking at the orignal code, what I wrote was clearly broken, though.
 It looks like it would blend the background into the result even in
areas where the object is opaque.

> Firstly it breaks progress_animation->transition type choice as there isn't
> one any more.
That's probably okay, although we should take it out of the api if it
doesn't work.

> Secondly I am unsure why when transitioning between images of
> different sizes but keeping a single frame_area didn't draw squiggles across
> the area.
Yea, I don't think we have a defined behavior for using frames of
different sizes around.

--Ray