"Norbert Hartl" <norbert@hartl.name> wrote in message news:1222159745.9772.5.camel@localhost...
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 10:01 +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
On 23.09.2008, at 09:09, Andrew Tween wrote:
Note that with a one-click app distribution, it isn't necessary to embed the fonts in the image. FreeType Plus looks for a folder named Fonts relative to the .image file, and loads any fonts it finds from there.
Putting the font file(s) into the Fonts folder has these advantages...
1.The image isn't bloated. (embedding a 20Mb font file would grow the image by 20Mb) So, the default font could be a large Unicode one, for example
2.Easier to create a one-click app for distribution.
3.Easier to install the font files into the OS so that other applications can also use them.
4. Free fonts that don't allow embedding can be used (e.g. Bitstream). This widens the choice of available free fonts.
The advantage to embedding the font file in the image is that it moves around with the .image file. Which for a one-click app isn't really an advantage at all :)
Cool!
We should actually think about moving more data into files... for example, there are huge literal arrays in UCSTable's class side initialize methods that are only there for initializing the class a long time ago. These would not even be needed to be read on startup.
Of course, this is violently against the "everything in the image" philosophy of Squeak... but I guess that any device one would want to run it on would have a filesystem of some sort.
Or there could be a call that reads it in and keeps it in the image. Easy for people they want to have it in their image.
FreeTypeFontProvider current embedFilesInDirectory: aDirectory will do this
Norbert