Hrm... I can see how the name could be a bit confusing, but the
reasoning is that that IS what the thumbnail was created with and
that's how it decides whether there is a thumbnail for it or not.
If you were to call it "240x192" then we wouldn't know that there was
an existing cached thumbnail until we did the hard work of recreating
it to get the dimensions.
Remember those values simply relate to the thumbnail method used, not
the output dimensions.
How were you planning on handling it?
On 5/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I've been working on adding unit tests for this patch and hit a little
> snag regarding the way the "size" is returned.
>
> Say I have an image that is 640x512 and I create a thumbnail passing
> in "240x240". The resulting thumbnail is scaled down to "240x192".
> Which causes some confusing naming conventions ("retaining 240x240 in
> the name) as well as making the height and width return incorrect
> values (240 is returned for both the height and width)
>
> I have a couple of ideas of how to fix this but I wanted to pass it by
> you first and make sure I'm not off in the wrong direction here. Any
> thoughts you'd have on fixing it the simplest way would be
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
