[squeak-dev] Re: JPEG plugin.
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Nov 3 21:01:42 UTC 2009
John M McIntosh wrote:
> I'm looking at the JPEG plugin and wondering?
>
> (a) Should I convert that to using the os-x platforms JPEG
> implementation, versus our usage of the source from the "Independent
> JPEG Group's software"?
Seems like a bad trade unless you want to severely rewrite the plugin
interface (making it effectively a new plugin). The current interface is
tied specifically to the IJGs implementation with internal structures
and functions being exposed fairly directly.
> (b) Should we consider upgrading the VMs from version "6b 27-Mar-1998"
> to the more current "release 7 of 27-Jun-2009" since we store the source
> in the VM SVN tree at the moment.
That sounds like a good idea.
> I've not looked but
>
> (a) Apple might have a private implementation that could be faster since
> it would likely use hardware vector services.
Almost certainly. Intel's performance prims can make JPEG stuff quite a
bit faster already.
> (b) Relying on the system libraries for conversion means fixes for
> security issues get prompt attention, versus our non-attention now.
I'm not sure about this. The IJGs code has been quite robust and to my
knowledge no exploits have ever been published. OTOH, Microsofts
implementation seems to have been sucessfully attacked in the past, so
it's a bit questionable whether using the OS vendors implementation
would necessarily be more secure than the IJGs version.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|