Hi, RaphaÃl Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So the default should be to open the images with the correct > orientation without asking, and there should be an option in the > preferences (gimprc) that allows the user to ignore the EXIF > Orientation tag or to be asked every time. The threshold for adding > new options to the gimprc should be high, but I think that this one > deserves it. Sure, that has never been questioned. The best thing would probably be to add a "[ ] Don't ask me again" toggle to the dialog. But I would suggest that this is delayed until we have established a framework for plug-ins to deal with such preferences. It would be wrong to depend on a modifications to the core here. All plug-ins should have an easy way to store configuration and presets. The current gimprc API in the PDB is not really sufficient for this. If we want to improve the image export functionality, and I think we want to do that for 2.4, we will also need such functionality. I want to suggest that we implement this by moving most of the GimpConfig functionality from the core to libgimpbase or, alternatively, to a new library, maybe called libgimpconfig. We should try to get this done early in 2.3 since it will allow us to solve quite a bit of useability issues that people have with plug-ins. In the core we already make heavy use of the GimpConfig interface. It basically adds serialization capabilites to any GObject that implements it. There's a default implementation that takes care of serializing and deserializing all object properties that have a certain flag set in their GParamSpec. GimpConfig was originally developed to solve the problem that it used to be a PITA to add a new configuration value to gimprc. Nowadays this is as simple as adding a new property to one of the classes that form the GimpRc object. Adding a property to a GObject involves registering a param-spec, a description of the property that defines the type of the value and includes a default value, a description and more. This information can then be used to serialize the value (generate a string representation) and to deserialize it (load the serialized values back in). No extra code needs to be written for this. The addition of the object properties also pays out when a user interfaces is needed to control the properties. We have a couple of convenience constructors in the core. The more generic ones could also be moved to libgimpwidgets. We use these functions to create the widgets in the tool-options dialogs and also the preference dialog. For example in order to create a check-button with a label next to it, we call gimp_prop_check_button_new (config, property_name, label_text); The returned button is a view on the property value. It is synced with the object config. Any change to the button is applied to the object and the button will also change it's state if the value changes by other means. Having this functionality available for all plug-ins and modules will certainly improve things. Plug-in user interface often mainly consist of a couple of widgets to control a number of configurations. If the plug-in implements an object that represents this configuration, the GUI code reduces to a few lines. Implementing a Reset button boils down to calling gimp_config_reset(). This will reset all object properties to their default values. Saving the current values as new default values would also become trivial. Even maintaining a couple of configurations like we do for the tool-options is easy. We can probably implement that as convenience functions in GimpDialog. The next step would of course be to move the PDB to using object properties as well. The work invested in porting plug-ins to GimpConfig will pay out again then. There are a few things that we will need to decide upon, like in which library this should live, what namespace it should use (is GimpConfig a good name?), and how much of the core GimpConfig we actually want to expose to plug-ins and modules. There are a couple of features like the ability to nest objects that would perhaps better be kept for the core only as they add quite a bit of complexity. Sven
