Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
I recently made a patch fix this problem
Original comment by CTpaH...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 11:48
Attachments:
Can you explain why your patch should fix this behavior?
You only changed: * pre +"_page-%04d.jpg\"* to * pre +"_page-%%04d.jpg\"* for
the
windows version. Why?
Original comment by seba.wag...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 11:54
Firstly, I replaced the * pre + "_page.jpg \" "* at * pre +" _page-% 04d.jpg \
"*.
This gives us the right files in the alphabetical order of sorting.
Secondly, in the version for windows, I added the second percent sign in order
to
transmit it to the command line
Аnd third - in the patch can be seen that I clearly do sort a list of files.
All this
provides the correct order of preview.
I'm attaching the new version of the patch. The essence of the fix is more
obvious here.
Original comment by CTpaH...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 12:39
Attachments:
There must be something wrong in your patch.
CreateLibraryPresentation:Line 76
Arrays.sort(files);
=> what is this for?
Original comment by seba.wag...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 1:05
I applied the first part of the change into r2002
Original comment by seba.wag...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 1:47
> Arrays.sort(files);
> => what is this for?
Java spec reads:
There is no guarantee that the name strings in the resulting array will appear
in any
specific order; they are not, in particular, guaranteed to appear in
alphabetical order.
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/io/File.html#list()
I believe the patch author wants to ensure that the list is sorted.
Original comment by alexei.f...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 2:08
And yes; it should be "allfiles".
Let us compare what was before and after the patch.
I download the same file containing more than ten pages. The contents of the
file
library.xml before the patch:
$ grep -w "thumb" library.xml
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="7649">_thumb_page-9.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="3239">_thumb_page-1.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="2884">_thumb_page-12.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="6793">_thumb_page-4.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="1948">_thumb_page-0.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="7001">_thumb_page-3.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="5838">_thumb_page-2.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="5213">_thumb_page-11.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="5942">_thumb_page-8.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="7406">_thumb_page-7.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="6883">_thumb_page-6.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="7315">_thumb_page-5.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444110000" size="5210">_thumb_page-10.jpg</thumb>
Here we see that the order is wrong
The contents of the file library.xml after the patch:
$ grep -w thumb library.xml
<thumb lastmod="1241444403937" size="1012">_thumb_page-0000.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444403953" size="1745">_thumb_page-0001.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444403953" size="3187">_thumb_page-0002.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404000" size="4056">_thumb_page-0003.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404015" size="3878">_thumb_page-0004.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404015" size="4022">_thumb_page-0005.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404031" size="3886">_thumb_page-0006.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404046" size="3871">_thumb_page-0007.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404046" size="3362">_thumb_page-0008.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404062" size="3787">_thumb_page-0009.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404078" size="2773">_thumb_page-0010.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404078" size="2815">_thumb_page-0011.jpg</thumb>
<thumb lastmod="1241444404093" size="1629">_thumb_page-0012.jpg</thumb>
As you can see that sorting alphabetically in my case is consistent with the
numerical comparison.
Alexei Fedotov absolutely right -the call File.list() does not guarantee any
sort.
Therefore Arrays.sort (allfiles) in r2002 commented out in vain.
Original comment by CTpaH...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 2:23
okay see r2003
Original comment by seba.wag...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 2:46
> Alexei Fedotov absolutely right
No I was not. :-) I missed that you used "files" instead of "allfiles".
Original comment by alexei.f...@gmail.com
on 5 May 2009 at 5:47
Issue 740 has been merged into this issue.
Original comment by alexei.f...@gmail.com
on 9 Jun 2009 at 4:25
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
e.rovin...@gmail.com
on 4 May 2009 at 11:26