Quantcast

drawable folders

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

drawable folders

Wally McClure
In the early betas, there were a set of drawable directories, -hdpi, -mdpi, -ldpi, and such.  It seemed like they were a convention for separate dpi based images.  The Mac monodevelop still has these directories.  Should these directories be used based on convention?  Should all images be lumped into a single drawable directory.

Wally

_______________________________________________
Monodroid mailing list
[hidden email]

UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: drawable folders

Jonathan Pryor
On Apr 13, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Wally McClure wrote:
> In the early betas, there were a set of drawable directories, -hdpi, -mdpi, -ldpi, and such.  It seemed like they were a convention for separate dpi based images.

That's correct, it's an Android-enforced convention for _all_ resources:

        http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/providing-resources.html

The same convention is also used for resource-based localization:

        http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/localization.html

For example, you could have a set of images (drawables) which vary from culture to culture (en vs. fr):

        http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/resources/providing-resources.html#BestMatch

> Should these directories be used based on convention?  Should all images be lumped into a single drawable directory.

That depends upon the resource needs of your application.

If you want to make use of Android's builtin resource selection support (e.g. to automatically change layouts based on screen aspect ration), you MUST use the naming convention (e.g. a `drawable` directory for normal portrait use, and a `drawable-land` for landscape drawables). The same convention is also used for layouts, string resources/l10n, etc., etc.

 - Jon

_______________________________________________
Monodroid mailing list
[hidden email]

UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: drawable folders

Jonathan Pobst
In reply to this post by Wally McClure
It simply comes down to how much advanced features we want to expose in
the templates.

On one hand, all those duplicated folders could potentially confuse
users who just want to put their image somewhere and load it with the
least amount of documentation reading.

On the other hand, seeing those folders gives you a taste that something
more elaborate is available, and might lead you to explore what they mean.

We haven't really come to a consensus on which way we feel is better.

Jonathan


On 4/13/2011 1:26 PM, Wally McClure wrote:

> In the early betas, there were a set of drawable directories, -hdpi,
> -mdpi, -ldpi, and such. It seemed like they were a convention for
> separate dpi based images. The Mac monodevelop still has these
> directories. Should these directories be used based on convention?
> Should all images be lumped into a single drawable directory.
>
> Wally
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monodroid mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
> UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid

_______________________________________________
Monodroid mailing list
[hidden email]

UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: drawable folders

Wally McClure
Thanks to both Jons for their responses.  Much appreciated.

> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:47:58 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [mono-android] drawable folders
>
> It simply comes down to how much advanced features we want to expose in
> the templates.
>
> On one hand, all those duplicated folders could potentially confuse
> users who just want to put their image somewhere and load it with the
> least amount of documentation reading.
>
> On the other hand, seeing those folders gives you a taste that something
> more elaborate is available, and might lead you to explore what they mean.
>
> We haven't really come to a consensus on which way we feel is better.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> On 4/13/2011 1:26 PM, Wally McClure wrote:
> > In the early betas, there were a set of drawable directories, -hdpi,
> > -mdpi, -ldpi, and such. It seemed like they were a convention for
> > separate dpi based images. The Mac monodevelop still has these
> > directories. Should these directories be used based on convention?
> > Should all images be lumped into a single drawable directory.
> >
> > Wally
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Monodroid mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monodroid mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
> UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid

_______________________________________________
Monodroid mailing list
[hidden email]

UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION:
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodroid
Loading...