On Tuesday 23 November 2004 23:44, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > "Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <gwidion@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > So the suggestion taht arised is to have a paint tool that reads > > what it will do from plain text files. These plain text files > > will be stored in a collection in their own directory, just like > > script-fus have one, brushes have one. curves have another. > > Let's see. If I argue that it would be too much hazzle to add a > plug-in framework, the alternative solution you come up with is to > integrate a text file parser that compiles a procedural brush on > the fly? Are you joking or can't you see yourself that this is an > order of magnitude more complex and still a lot less flexible than > the initial proposal? I was not joking and I can see it is both more complex, and less flexible than the callback suggested. What made me suggest this is that: 1) It will be all 'enclosed' in the new tool- and require new code that I can at least imagine how could be done. 2) In this way creating a new paint 'effect' will be a lot easier than writting a plugin. -- Anyway, I think this discussion can rest for a while now. Since you are so willing to help some more people to be able to hack on the core, let's move to a more simple issue - bug #158666. I will write about it on another e-mail. Regards, JS -><- > Sven
