Hi, I was writing my reply in a hurry, but I prefered to answer rather then to wait for now. I also assumed there would be answer already ;-) I'll split my answer in the two topics: exif and YAML.
In the train back from Belgium, I got an idea which is my best idea so far, as two previous ones were rushed in without much thinking. So the third solution is to add a BooleanField 'Metadata' to the Save action, which is enabled by default. Besides that there should be a "Save Metadata' action which has only the fields 'Filename' and 'In'. If one of these fields is different from <filename> or <folder> respectively, this allows to make a copy with modified metadata as well. This action would be listed among the other metadata actions under the category 'Metadata' of course. The description would be 'Save only metadata'. The 'Save Metadata' dissappears than from the Execute dialog. This very nice as it completely follows Phatchs natural workflow. After I had this idea, I felt asleep. But now the longer I think about the more I like it and I will probably implement this in Phatch 0.2, as it seems much better to me than the current situation and any proposal so far. On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Robin Mills<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I hope my initial comments were not too harsh. I still have some in >> store (ie. proper preview and co.). :) > > Juho: > You have made a fantastic and amazing contribution to Phatch in one weekend. > Harsh? No. Constructive? Yes! I feel the same ;-) Especially because you do the opposite of trolling, you do massive work. > Team: > I'd like to make the following (and I hope constructive) comments: > > I'm also uneasy about the Metadata/Save model. I've been thinking about > whether to add a boolean "add geotag icon to image". Look at the image > below and you'll see I've added the GeoTag icon in the bottom left of the > image. So what should the action do? The GeoTag action updates the > metadata of original image. Should "add geotag icon to image" modify the > original image? I don't think so - that's a destructive PIL operation. > > So I have two alternative proposals (I prefer A): > A) Add a boolean "Update source image metadata yes/no" to the GeoTag Action. > There are probably actions which cannot be split in two (proposal B). > A simple boolean "Update source image metadata yes/no" will suffice > > B) Two actions: > (add ! to the name of every metadata action) > i) GeoTag ! (a metadata operation) updates the source image file. > ii) GeoTagIcon (an image operation) adds the GeoTag icon with PIL (if the > image has been geotagged). Needs a save. Robin for your geotag action, I don't see much problems. There could be just a ChoiceField with 'Placement', with the possibilities ' None' , 'Top Left' , ' Top Right', 'Bottom Right', 'Bottom Left'. The default value would be 'None'. I really like to keep the numbers of actions as low as possible, so I am strongly against having two geotag actions. (BTW I find it cool you just phatched the Adobe headquarters ;-) ) > On Jun 14, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Juho Vepsäläinen wrote: >> Would it make sense to separate the metadata part from image editing? >> Then possibly different kind of workflow could be justified and >> documented better. So perhaps the application would have separate tabs >> for editing images and metadata. It probably boils down to how the >> application is actually used. :) I don't want to split the image and the exif workflows. The tabs will unnecessarily clutter the UI and I like the interface of Phatch to be as minimal as possible. If we can live without tabs, we should stick to KISS (Keep It Simple and Stupid). That's why I use a list view (instead of a node editor) and focused on interaction with other applications (drag & drop, droplets, nautilus, f-spot, shutter, ...) rather than having our own image browser. In the future I might see a future for tabs in Phatch if you want to allow 'chaining'. So you could branch an action list within a tab to another tab, but this needs further thoughts as probably it would require condition actions (which include/exclude files). The tabs should only appear if there is more than one tab. >>>> Is there some specific place where I should put my tests? Do you >>>> prefer to use some specific testing suite (ie. unittest/doctest/some >>>> other?)? >>> Look to core/lib/formField.py I started implementing doctests there >>> already as an example. However I had not yet the time to finish it >>> yet. So always use doctests, unless it doesn't make sense. The >>> unittests will be run by nose. >> >> Alright. Great. Feel free to add doctests where ever you can. After releasing Phatch 0.2 I'd like to integrate Sphinx. The doctests will serve two roles: documentation and unittests. Just like I did for AR which Juho knows quite well: http://ar.stani.be Best regards, Stani _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~phatch-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~phatch-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
