On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Øyvind Kolås <pippin@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM, gfxuser <gfx.user@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was also wondering why not XML. IIRC image processing in GEGL isThe reason that a new/extended format is needed is that GEGL is more
> internally represented by a tree (correct me if I'm wrong). Are YAML and
> JSON able to handle this, better than a native tree format like XML?
general than a tree - it uses graphs. At the moment GEGL uses the
implicit tree of the nodes from XML + the ability to clone outputs to
represent the subset of graphs that are representable with sources,
filters and composers (two input pads, one output pad). All of the
programming API in GEGL deals with graphs not trees - the tree
representation of constrained subsets can however still be useful to
use both for _some_ deserialization purposes as well as UI
representations.
/Øyvind K.
--
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
-- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/
_______________________________________________
gegl-developer-list mailing list
gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
_______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
