+1 on having the methods:
Imaging.getExifMetadata()
Imaging.getIptcMetadata()
Imaging.getXmpMetadata()
It is is a good idea so one can access metadata-format-specific metadata
in a metadata-format-specific way and handling all special needs of
specific metadata formats. These methods should work on any image
resource and throw something like MissingFeatureException for when a
metadata format is not yet supported for an image format or throw
something like an InvalidRequestException when a metadata format is
invalid for a image format.
That said, there may still be some value to having a metadata-format
netrual getMetadata() interface along the lines of the patch I
submitted. For now, we could simply log an issue and defer it and
insteda focus on your suggestion above. That would meet my needs just fine.
Question is do we do these changes after a formal 1.0 release or before?
May be it is better to get stable code under current API out as 1.0 and
then work on a 2.0-SNAPSHOT (as opposed to 1.1 since the API changes are
not backward compatible and are in fact major). Or is it better to do
these changes for the 1.0 release so consumers of the project do not get
exposed to a big API change?
If we can do the proposed change without a long delay then I suggest we
do it for 1.0. If it means a long delay then I suggest we defer to 2.0.
Thoughts?
On 07/03/2012 03:58 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
I've also considered the metadata interfaces we use, and I am not sure
the current approaches are any good.
Most metadata formats are designed in a way specific to that format,
eg. some have arbitrary levels of nesting, others have a flat
structure, etc. But most are designed to be stored in any image
format.
So instead of a Imaging.getMetadata() method that tries to unify all
metadata into one common interface - and does so badly, because eg.
EXIF can have nested subdirectories and this information is lost -
maybe we should have:
Imaging.getExifMetadata()
Imaging.getIptcMetadata()
Imaging.getXmpMetadata()
Regards
Damjan
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Farrukh Najmi
<farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote:
Updated proposed patch with following new changes:
Add getValue() method to nested class IImageMetadataItem. These return the
value of the item as an Object allowing for values of various types to be
returned.
On 07/03/2012 11:01 AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
Moving this thread to dev list as it seems to be more appropriate there....
Attached is a patch to the IImageMetadata.java that reflects my revised
proposal thinking this through in conjunction with the proposed solution in
another thread...
Add a getMetadataSpecification() method to IImageMetadata so we can manage
the metadata specification that defines the metadata
Add getMetadata() to nested class IImageMetadataItem to get back at the
parent IImageMetadata instance so we can access the metadata specification
information managed from an IImageMetadata instance
Add getId(), getName(), getDescription() methods to nested class
IImageMetadataItem. These are the key triplet of info about the metadata
item that is needed in my experience
Of course implementations of these two interfaces would need to also be
updated to support the new methods according to proposed semantics. I would
be happy to contribute in any way that I can and as requested.
Dev team colleagues, please weigh in on the proposal. Thanks for your
awesome work to create this project and for considering this proposal.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
