At 15:20 20.06.03 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: >Hi, > >Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> - Intercept every PDB call if a macro recorder instance is running. >> (try to guess the call stack depth to avoid recording functions >> called by a plug-in) > >That would mean that all actions go through the PDB. The fact is that >no user action goes through the PDB at the moment. Only plug-ins call >PDB functions, the core doesn't. We definitely need to change this to >make macro recording possible. > This is the all-or-nothing argument. IMO a macro recorder would already be useful if it only records the calls done as reaction on users menu usage, where many go through the PDB. Without looking further I thought there are already core functions which work like this, too. Obviously the recorder should be written that every function which finally goes through the PDB gets recorder as well. But it would be rather difficult to _not_ make this happen automagically ... >> Now for my questions : >> - are there further huge changes planned for the plug-in/pdb >> code (time involved to maintain my patch) ? > >Yes, definitely. The PDB needs to be completely dumped and redone. It >lacks such important features as named parameters and default >values. Nathan is already working on a replacement library that is >supposed to provide that functionality. We should consider to revamp >the PDB soon after the release. > Probably I should have choosen my words more careful. Second try: Are there _short-term_ huge changes planned for the plug-in/pdb code ? >> - is the outlined approach mature enough to be at least >> considered for acceptance if I have a first working version ? > >We usually prefer if code is developed in the CVS tree. Most attempts >where people tried to prepare a working version in their tree lead to >rotting bits and wasted time and effort. Agreed, been there doen that ;) OTOH before putting something into cvs it should basically work, which my original patch against gimp-1-2-cvs did - at least it did not break anything else. >It seems like the macro >recorder needs some substantial changes to the framework. Once these >are done, it should be a piece of cake to implement. That said, I'd >suggest you help defining and building the framework needed. > That's what I tried with my additions (half a year ago) to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51937 But beside the valueable input from Raphael there was no further response/interest. > >Sven > > -------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert
