Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> From: Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:54:34 -0800
>
> Kelly Martin wrote:
>> Dave Neary wrote:
>>
>>> We could even consider having a quickish stable release after 2.2
>>> with just GeglImage replacing GimpLayer, which would give us a
>>> chance to work out any wrinkles in that milestone before we start
>>> really relying on it...
>> Unless the code has changed a lot and I haven't noticed it (and
>> looking I see it hasn't), you should be redesigning GimpDrawable
>> (not GimpLayer) to inherit from GeglImage.
>
> Actually, yes.  Though GimpDrawable, GimpLayer and GeglImage all need to
> be touched.

Actually no. GimpDrawable is a GimpItem is a GimpObject. It should
*have* a GeglImage, not be one.

>> I'm not sure whether having GimpImage inherit from GeglNode, or
>> contain a member GeglNode, makes more sense.
>
> I believe GimpImage is a set of GimpLayers.  It might even be able to
> stay that way.

It should stat that way I'd say.

ciao,
--mitch
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to