* Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [040115 23:08]: > oops. Sent the last mail a little early. > > Also, I don't like the idea of temporary ops. I think ops should be > persistent and creating an linking in a temp op, which I think of as a > pretty heavyweight operation seems pretty wasteful. Given a good caching system, the operation should not be heavyweight, you need animateable parameters for the op's anyway,. en effectlayer must be editable from within the gimp, effectively animating the effect constantly getting a preview of what the changes lead to, scrubbing the range widget is still animating. The stroke of the paintbrush is well expressed as a vector,. you want the coordinates to be subpixel coordinates anyway. Sampling them from a mouse is even easier given a proper affine transform for zoom, and rotation (a desireable thing to do with the canvas and a Wacom for instance.). In zoomed out mode, this would mean that the motion events we get won't draw polylines, but can be approximated with bezier curves for better interpolation, also a desireable feature. > So, what I think of as a better idea is either: > > Create an interface, which provides all the proper procedural drawing > routines. > and/or > Create an interface which lets you get a writable image, and let writes > to that image be handled by the op in an approiate way. > > I think the later is good anway because it makes it easier to make gegl > intereact with objects outside of gegl. IT makes the whole system more > flexable (and eases the transistion for the gimp). It like it. The latter is the right thing, the procedural drawing routines are possible to create within that model, and the procedural drawing routines can be used with dynamic parameters as the user interacts with the ui, in the model I outline above. So at least it doesn't disallow any of the implementations :) /Øyvind K. -- .^. /V\ Øyvind Kolås, Gjøvik University College, Norway /(_)\ <oeyvindk@xxxxxx>,<pippin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ^ ^
