On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote: > Manish Singh <yosh@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote: > >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote: > >> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote: > >> > > What requirements would the new PDB have? > >> > > >> > There's a number of issues to be addressed, like GEGL node support, > >> > efficiency, UI generation, distributed processing, and macro recording > >> > support. > >> > >> Macro recording is already trivial with libpdb: you just connect to the > >> appropriate signal of the Pdb object. > > > > Have you given any thought on how to macroize interactive paint > > functions? > > By simply passing an array of GimpCoords to the yet-to-be-generated > core PDB wrappers, just as all core functions will have to be invoked > via these wrappers to make marco recording possible. Well, something has to generate those coords, and something has to update the UI before painting is finished. I was asking more in terms of an API should look like. Interactive paint is more involved than say, a bucket fill, which is easily translated into to "call PDB bucket fill function on button release". -Yosh
