Image blocks and blurring? (samples/simple-sphere.rb)
Running through "bad" samples, and noticed that samples/simple-sphere.rb isn't close to running. It uses two big things that look problematic:
-
imageform that takes a block instead of pointing to a file -
blurmethod which influences the drawing
If SWT doesn't easily support blur, may consider just dropping support for it (or marking with a warning and not implementing?) Bears more research.
Image of app on Shoes 3:

Not sure, there was some block form we said we're not gonna do... can't remember if it was image do or shape do.
Yeah I recall the shape form too. Don't need a call right now but if we aren't doing it that same, cool as it is, should go.
So looked into this from a couple different angles and haven't come to any satisfying conclusions:
- There isn't an easy way to apply a
blureffect that I can find in SWT. While certainly do-able with enough effort, it feels way out of proportion to my willingness to invest in it - Looking over shoes3 source, found there was also
glowas another effect. Wonder if there are others :/ - As far as
imagewith block, it seems to share some similarity withshape--the basic art elements work within the block for both.imagein Shoes 3 hasblur/glowbut doesn't support the positionalline_tostyle methods. On the flip side,shapedoesn't supportblur/glowfrom what I can tell (behavior's odd, but doesn't seem to work).
So where's that leave us? I hate to leave something plainly incompatible, but this seems over the effort line to me. Given that, I'd propose to leave these lying for now (maybe bump this issue to 4.1 for later consideration if someone wants), but plumb in stub methods that warn about the lack of support. This keeps Shoes 3 apps that used that from crashing (which is a bad experience), but avoids sinking too much time and energy there now.
What do you think @PragTob?
Sounds reasonable to me and I agree a lot - rather have a version out that is 95 to 99% compatible than quibble with the difficult stuff too long. :+1: