Thanks for the input, Jeremy. I'd definitely be open to using PIL instead of ImageMagick. django.contrib.dataplot use of ImageMagick is relatively simple: taking vector PDFs drawn in R and converting them to fullscreen and thumbnail raster PNGs.
Do you know of a way that PIL can be used to convert PDF to PNG? A quick google search reveals this pdf (http://www.pythonware.com/media/data/pil-handbook.pdf) which suggests that PIL is only capable of writing PDFs (p69). What I meant by >> general enough to handle several different backend >> plotting languages, such as matplotlib, pil, octave, was that if a Django app wanted to use pil to draw the initial PDF (rather than R), then the django.contrib.dataplot framework is perfectly extensible for that purpose (not with current 0.2 release, but these generalized plotting backends are a planned feature for my next release, 0.3). Sincerely, Toby Dylan Hocking http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~tdhock On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > On 7/11/07, Toby Dylan Hocking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How hard would it be to depend on PIL rather than ImageMagick? I'm > asking because Django already requires PIL if you want ImageField, and > it's a shame to depend on both. > > (I know there are different features in each and you may have a good > reason for choosing Magick.) > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---