Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On , 9 Feb 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
>
> > Therefore I propose to completely rewrite everything that can be
> > considered a "PaintObject" into a generic provider form, where the
> > paintcore for each operation asks the provider for it's data.
>
> It would be nice to be able to use loadable modules to implement new
> "providers", so that the first cut can ignore natural media, but then
> (eg Raph?) can add them later as a module.
>
> Basically, make it a nice harness for the people playing with
> watercolour simulators etc to use.
yes, that would be very cool.
The main problem we have to think about (when following my suggestion
at all) is, what kind of work/knowledge the paintcore still has (to
do). E.g. natural media, does the paintcore still only know about
brushes that are put onto a layer and the natural brush provider hands
out brush masks that have been modified by the texture?
On a first look, I would tend to make paintcore as dumb as
possible. We should identify what the basic atom of "painting something"
is. Only this should be implemented in the paintcore and every fancy
operation should be handled by the providers.
E.g. is painting with a pattern not just a provider that hands out
pixmap brushes that change with the movement? Or is this too fas
stretched? Even if it is too far stretched for this example, the
general benefit may be worth it. I dunno.
Obviously there is a lot of performance stuff one has to make sure to
get right, and I don't want to talk about this as I simply don't have
any knowledge about it :-) even less than the other stuff I tend to
talk about.
jtl
