Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer > To: gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:54:34 -0800 > > Kelly Martin wrote: >> Dave Neary wrote: >> >>> We could even consider having a quickish stable release after 2.2 >>> with just GeglImage replacing GimpLayer, which would give us a >>> chance to work out any wrinkles in that milestone before we start >>> really relying on it... >> Unless the code has changed a lot and I haven't noticed it (and >> looking I see it hasn't), you should be redesigning GimpDrawable >> (not GimpLayer) to inherit from GeglImage. > > Actually, yes. Though GimpDrawable, GimpLayer and GeglImage all need to > be touched. Actually no. GimpDrawable is a GimpItem is a GimpObject. It should *have* a GeglImage, not be one. >> I'm not sure whether having GimpImage inherit from GeglNode, or >> contain a member GeglNode, makes more sense. > > I believe GimpImage is a set of GimpLayers. It might even be able to > stay that way. It should stat that way I'd say. ciao, --mitch
