Raphael wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Dave Neary wrote:
>  > Raphael Quinet wrote:
>  > > [...] Note that it is important
>  > > that each individual item in the EXIF data is converted to a
>  > > separate GIMP parasite instead of importing the whole EXIF data
>  > > one big chunk because [...]
>  >
>  > I'm not sure I agree with you here... I thought the matter was
>  > closed and that we were in agreement last December, but as I
>  > understand it there is no reason to have more than one parasite
>  > exif data (or if you prefer a more generic metadata parasite
>  > encompasses a superset of exif).
> There are several reasons for using individual parasites for each
> of the EXIF data instead of using a single parasite including the
> whole structure:

[snipped points]

Your points all have merit. My problem is now, and has always been,
that a parasite per piece of data would mean adding an extra 50 or 60
parasites which would be relatively persistent. That makes things
pretty complicated, to my mind. Instead we could store the whole
metadata in a nice format (say as xml?) as one parasite, and have it
parsed in one place. Then people who want to use bits of the metadata
would just use the bits they wanted, and ignore the bits they didn't
terms of file formats this certainly doesn't contradict your concern
things being copied blindly - it amounts to the same thing as your
that those things should be ignored blindly).

I think one structure, defined in one place, makes the handling of
metadata cleaner. I'd equate it somewhat loosely to the move from a
number of preferences to one preferences structure which we had a
while back. I think your concerns about passing around data which will
eventually be ignored, and incurring an overhead through parsing one
big object into something meaningful, are real. I think they could
probably be addressed easily.

>  > My understanding, from what Sven and Mitch told me back then, was
>  > a part of a parasite could quite easily be modified independant
of the
>  > rest.
> The parasites are just untyped blocks of data, so a plug-in could
> certainly copy everything, modify a part of the data and then
> re-attach the updated parasite to the image.  But again this would
> assume that all file plug-ins that want to use (a part of) the
> metadata are able to parse the EXIF block.  I would prefer to avoid
> this requirement.

And herein lies the crux - one object which is parsed by any object
wants to use bits of it, or multiple objects which are the bits. I
think the
cleanliness of having everything in one place is appealing. I think it
could make things less convoluted for places thgat use a lot of the
and not too bad for places that only use a little.

Maybe we'll never agree :) Then again, maybe someone else will offer
opinion, and one of us will realise how wrong we were?


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to