On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:33 +0000, Ross Burton wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 19:10 +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > > Stuff that belongs in an Image class: > > - The pixbuf(s) (e.g. multilayer) > > - Metadata > > - Operations/Effects (metadata safe) > > - Thumbnail(?) > > I don't think Operations/Effects are terribly useful, the only > requirement is that load/save should not drop any metadata, and that is > separate from effects. > > Also GdkPixbuf has some basic functions for image manipulation, so > extending that list would be useful. Specifically I'd like a desaturate > function which doesn't effect the lightness of the pixbuf.
Encapsulating plain pixbufs in images has imho several advantages: - The Image class would ideally hide the low-level pixbuf operations. When you resize an Image, you probably don't want to get a scaled copy of the pixbuf, but resize it "in place". - E.g. to losslessly rotate a JPEG image is not the same as to rotate it's pixbuf. - You might want to just "preload" an image, i.e. getting only the metadata and maybe the thumbnail. - An Image can be an animation (e.g. animated gif) - Metadata should be updated immediately, not just on load/save. This is especially important for an app like Eog, where metadata is displayed alongside the image. - This is a step towards FirstClassObjects: http://live.gnome.org/ThreePointZero_2fFirstClassObjects Nevertheless, I agree, that the pixbuf operations themselves do not belong in such an Image class. Greg _______________________________________________ Eog-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/eog-list
