On 1 Feb, Sven Neumann wrote:
> You don't seem to be very familiar with gnome-libs, especially not
> with the progress that was/is being made towards the next release.
Uhm, not quite except that I'm trying to compile it every three days...
> gnome-print for printing (preview, native printer drivers, a nice
> print dialog)
Optionally, OK....
> gnome-font for font-rendering (don't know if gnome-2.0 will have
> this)
I doubt that this would be of any real use, we want to have first class
rendering into GIMP with no eye on speed and such opposing to the
font-rendering of applications where rerendering happens quite often...
> gnome-canvas for the UI (he draw routines we use on the gimp
> canvas are very difficult to handle, using objects that can be connected
> to and emit signals would make our live much easier)
I didn't really get your point here....
> libart provides convenient and optimized functions for all
> sorts of affine transformations
Okay, I wouldn't even mind to make libart mandantory...
> gdk-pixbuf
> image-loading and simple (but fast) transformations (we may want
> to use this to implement a proper brush and patterns system
> since it integrates nicely with libart which would give us
> scalable, rotatable brushes/patterns for free)
Optionally this would be okay, although I prefer Rastermans Imlib2...
It may be that gdk-pixbuf focuses too much on the needs of a desktop
or were there any other reasons to go away from Imlib?
> gconf for configuration (have a look into the code for the
> preferences-dialog, it sucks badly ...)
I think the preferences dialog is very nice, anyway I'd prefer using
XML as a save format for configureations and even for scripts. This would make
macro recording possible...
But having a centric configuration possibility for GIMP doesn't make
any sense to me.... anyone out there who would like to configure it via
GNOMEs control-center or via console? :))
> gtkhtml seems to be a very nice replacement for gtkxmhtml
> ...
Okay, for the help system... optional....
> Now, tell me why we should recode all this on our own. It would not
> only be ridiculous to do so, I can also assure you that it is beyond
> our limits due to limited resources of good developers willing to
> spend their time to do it.
I don't think we should avoid using new technologies for every price
but we should avoid linking against megabytes of libraries just for having
a possibility to print or render a nice UI....
> On the other hand, a lot depends on the GNOME people. I hope that
> their goal is to provide a bloat-free set of portable libraries that
> don't depend on too much other stuff we don't want to use.
We'll see....
--
Servus,
Daniel
