Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, James Henstridge wrote: > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support in > dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of gdk-pixbuf > drops the libart dependency, so the only libraries required to build > gdk-pixbuf are glib, gtk+ and the image libraries, so it is no more of a > problem to compile than imlib. > > The current way we use imlib doesn't exploit any of its caching > functionality, and fits what gdk-pixbuf provides quite nicely. > > What do you think? At some point we really should drop it. There is no hurry right now though. We need to wait at least until there has been a release of the new gdk-pixbuf and most people have that installed. / Alex
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 10:19:07PM -0500, Lars Clausen wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > #ifdef USE_IMLIB > >do_it_the_old_broken_way (); > > #else > > do_it_the_new_way_with_pixbuf (); > > #endif > > Way ahead of you:) That's the way it is now. The question is when we > should remove imlib support altogether. If that's the way it is, it is not broken, so don't fix it :-) When supporting the Imlib compatibility code becomes a burden, or pixbuf is known to be widely used (which is about 1.5 months after a version of gnome-core linked with pixbuf is declared stable enought for end-users release), remove it. Or in short: when maintaining it becomes a bigger pain than removing it. []s, |alo + -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key in the personal page Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
James Henstridge wrote: > The DiaCanvas is actually a modification of what Dia uses. I haven't > actually looked at DiaCanvas though. > Gotcha. I was under the impression that it was a separate component developed by the Dia developers and was broken out separately. > As for gdk-pixbuf support, dia currently uses it if it is available in > preference to imlib (this support is a bit broken after Federico's big > gdk-pixbuf changes (which removed the libart dependency and made GdkPixbuf > an opaque structure)). > I see, I didn't read the question carefully enough. I interpreted it as when should migration begin as opposed to what was actually asked. It broke some of our code too, but wasn't too bad to fix. Ahhh, life on the CVS bleeding edge. -- Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: > James Henstridge wrote: > > > > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support in > > dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of gdk-pixbuf > > drops the libart dependency, so the only libraries required to build > > gdk-pixbuf are glib, gtk+ and the image libraries, so it is no more of a > > problem to compile than imlib. > > > > The current way we use imlib doesn't exploit any of its caching > > functionality, and fits what gdk-pixbuf provides quite nicely. > > > > What do you think? > > > > FWIW I work with a research project that is migrating our visual > interface for the same reasons. By projecting ahead, we're ready to run > with gdk-pixbuf when it and the gnome canvas widget are fully > integrated. > > Since gnome will rely so heavily upon gdk-pixbuf I wouldn't be too > concerned about the user base not having the library, or having it > readily accessible very soon. > > On another issue, I haven't looked at your code, but I assume you're > still using the DiaCanvas as your main widget. > > On Arjan Molenaar's web site the latest version is 0.40.0 of November 6 > 1999. Do you have an updated version of the widget in CVS? The DiaCanvas is actually a modification of what Dia uses. I haven't actually looked at DiaCanvas though. As for gdk-pixbuf support, dia currently uses it if it is available in preference to imlib (this support is a bit broken after Federico's big gdk-pixbuf changes (which removed the libart dependency and made GdkPixbuf an opaque structure)). > > > -- > > Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. > James.
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:23:03PM -0500, Lars Clausen wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib >> > support in dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version >> > of >> >> I think we should keep it for now, since a lot of people will have imlib >> compiled but not gdk-pixbuf... on the other hand, it's better to get the >> changes out early. Code-wise, it doesn't matter much. > > > #ifdef USE_IMLIB >do_it_the_old_broken_way (); > #else > do_it_the_new_way_with_pixbuf (); > #endif > > > And of course use autoconf; if pixbuf is found, don't use imlib. > > (Of course I have a big mouth and I'm not writing any code, but > this looks to me like the correct way to make progressive > changes, specially when backwards compatibility is concerned.) Way ahead of you:) That's the way it is now. The question is when we should remove imlib support altogether. -Lars -- Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause) | Hårdgrim of Numenor "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I| Retainer of Sir Kegg will defend to the death your right to say it."| of Westfield --Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | Chaos Berserker of Khorne
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
James Henstridge wrote: > > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support in > dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of gdk-pixbuf > drops the libart dependency, so the only libraries required to build > gdk-pixbuf are glib, gtk+ and the image libraries, so it is no more of a > problem to compile than imlib. > > The current way we use imlib doesn't exploit any of its caching > functionality, and fits what gdk-pixbuf provides quite nicely. > > What do you think? > FWIW I work with a research project that is migrating our visual interface for the same reasons. By projecting ahead, we're ready to run with gdk-pixbuf when it and the gnome canvas widget are fully integrated. Since gnome will rely so heavily upon gdk-pixbuf I wouldn't be too concerned about the user base not having the library, or having it readily accessible very soon. On another issue, I haven't looked at your code, but I assume you're still using the DiaCanvas as your main widget. On Arjan Molenaar's web site the latest version is 0.40.0 of November 6 1999. Do you have an updated version of the widget in CVS? -- Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Wed, Apr 12, 2000 at 09:23:03PM -0500, Lars Clausen wrote: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support > > in dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of > > I think we should keep it for now, since a lot of people will have imlib > compiled but not gdk-pixbuf... on the other hand, it's better to get the > changes out early. Code-wise, it doesn't matter much. #ifdef USE_IMLIB do_it_the_old_broken_way (); #else do_it_the_new_way_with_pixbuf (); #endif And of course use autoconf; if pixbuf is found, don't use imlib. (Of course I have a big mouth and I'm not writing any code, but this looks to me like the correct way to make progressive changes, specially when backwards compatibility is concerned.) []s, |alo + -- Hack and Roll ( http://www.hackandroll.org ) News for, uh, whatever it is that we are. http://www.webcom.com/lalo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key in the personal page Brazil of Darkness (RPG)--- http://zope.gf.com.br/BroDar
Re: Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support > in dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of > gdk-pixbuf drops the libart dependency, so the only libraries required to > build gdk-pixbuf are glib, gtk+ and the image libraries, so it is no more > of a problem to compile than imlib. > > The current way we use imlib doesn't exploit any of its caching > functionality, and fits what gdk-pixbuf provides quite nicely. I think we should keep it for now, since a lot of people will have imlib compiled but not gdk-pixbuf... on the other hand, it's better to get the changes out early. Code-wise, it doesn't matter much. -Lars -- Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause) | Hårdgrim of Numenor "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I| Retainer of Sir Kegg will defend to the death your right to say it."| of Westfield --Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | Chaos Berserker of Khorne
Should we drop the imlib dependency alltogether?
I was wondering what people think of the idea of dropping imlib support in dia altogether in favour of gdk-pixbuf. The next version of gdk-pixbuf drops the libart dependency, so the only libraries required to build gdk-pixbuf are glib, gtk+ and the image libraries, so it is no more of a problem to compile than imlib. The current way we use imlib doesn't exploit any of its caching functionality, and fits what gdk-pixbuf provides quite nicely. What do you think? James. -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
