> OK, maybe I'm pessimistic here, even if some of my python scripts had to be > reworked between 2.6 and 2.8, which have far less differences than 2.8 and > 2.10. Then in the current API there are still many values with 0-255 ranges > (gimp-drawable-{get|set}-pixel (),gimp-histogram) for instance. So either > there is absolutely no change in the API and the script may produce > sub-optimal results in images with high bit depth, or there is some change > and the script has to be reworked and may be made bimodal or forked to > support 2.8 and 2.10. If the PDB/Python API is to support even the majority of the new functionalities, i t will need a lot of additions/rethink. And it is not only on the Python side. On the other hand, It would not be nice to add a lot of new calls to the API for 2.10, and get those invalidated by the transition to a GIMP 3.0 afterwards, so we better have some care in picking the new calls. When working from Python code, the ideal direction to go is easy to imagine: to have a couple PDB calls to get a GEGL buffer (or source node) returned from GIMP, and then using GEGL-based code to perform the actual image operations, and return a node, or buffer back to GIMP. That way, one won't need to rewrite every PDB call to support several pixel formats, and that would be valid only for GIMP 2.10. On the other hand, it is not currently easy to use GEGL bindings to the Python linguage - due to tha fact that all binding is delegated to be auto-generated by gobject introspection, which in, its turn, is only maintained for glib3, gtk+3 - (while GEGL is tied to glib2). I could get it working, more or less here - some calls simply crash - and started a small project to wrap the g.i. automatically generated objects ito things friendler to the Python developer (check https://github.com/jsbueno/python-gegl), but that depends that one sets-up g.i. and pygobject, correctly previously. And these projects branchs to support glib2 are apparently unmaintained, and had already bit-rot a bit. (If someone can get pygobject working cleanly with GEGL, please do tell me and say which versions you have used) Still, I maintain that, at least for a Python API, that would be the better way to go - we'd have to either "unrot" pygobject + gegl bindings, or find another route to use GEGL from Python that would be api-compatible to pygobject + gegl on glib3. (So that is also my "what is missing before 2.10" in what concerns automating GIMP via Python) js -><- _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list