Michael Muré <batolettre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let's roll the ball a bit further. > > http://pastebin.com/4ZkPRz43 > > Here is another try, with XML this time. In the process, I corrected some > flaws that was present in the YAML and JSON test: > * the output node is mentioned explicitly. It was implicit before, the > output node being the root of the tree. > * parameters and connection are separated by different tags, not just by > name > * operation's ID and pad are separated when describing a connection, so no > need to parse, and each can have ':' in their names > > The different kind of parameters we can have: > - boolean > - int > - double > - string > - enumeration > - GeglColor (serialization defined in gegl-color.c) > - GeglCurve (no serialization format defined) > - GeglPath (serialization defined in gegl-path.c > > Is this better ? Looks ok to me. One thing i would do: Leave out the 'out' attribute of the root node (which probably should designate the root of the graph). It does not really fit to the rest of the file. The XML describes completely what the graph looks like already. The 'out' attribute seems to be different; it seems to describe how to USE the graph instead of how it looks. But for this a single attribute is not enough anyway. For example, i sometimes use gegl for splitting an image into the channels R, G and B, so i have three root nodes, so there would be no useful single attribute to use as a root. And because i do not have a better idea at hand for how this should be included in a serialized format (if it should be included at all), i would leave it out. wbr - Rasmus > -- > Michael _______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
