more questions about the PS backend

Is there a reason for storing the PostScript data in a

    > string first? Otherwise I could just pass the real file
    > handle to RendererPS and it would write all the stuff
    > directly into the output file.

The reason I did it (I think) was for efficiency, (wrongly) thinking
it would be faster to write to StringIO than to a file object. Of
course, file objects buffer their output, so this is not a real
consideration. I think its fine to make the change you suggested -
while you're in there, I suggest supporting writing to a file object
as well as a filename, as agg does now. All backends should support
this.

JDH

Hello John,

···

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:41:03PM -0600, John Hunter wrote:

I think its fine to make the change you suggested -
while you're in there, I suggest supporting writing to a file object
as well as a filename, as agg does now. All backends should support
this.

Done!

All the best,
Jochen
--
http://seehuhn.de/

Hello,

    > Is there a reason for storing the PostScript data in a
    > string first? Otherwise I could just pass the real file
    > handle to RendererPS and it would write all the stuff
    > directly into the output file.

The reason I did it (I think) was for efficiency, (wrongly) thinking
it would be faster to write to StringIO than to a file object. Of
course, file objects buffer their output, so this is not a real
consideration. I think its fine to make the change you suggested -

I found a good reason for storing the PS in a string first:
we have to process all of the figure before we write the PostScript
prologue. Otherwise there is no good way to know which fonts
to include in the PostScript file :frowning:
I reverted my change for now, we are back to storing the PostScript
data temporarily in a string.

All the best,
Jochen

···

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:41:03PM -0600, John Hunter wrote:
--
http://seehuhn.de/