On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
> >> > > What requirements would the new PDB have?
> >> >
> >> > There's a number of issues to be addressed, like GEGL node support,
> >> > efficiency, UI generation, distributed processing, and macro recording
> >> > support.
> >> 
> >> Macro recording is already trivial with libpdb: you just connect to the
> >> appropriate signal of the Pdb object.
> >
> > Have you given any thought on how to macroize interactive paint
> > functions?
> 
> By simply passing an array of GimpCoords to the yet-to-be-generated
> core PDB wrappers, just as all core functions will have to be invoked
> via these wrappers to make marco recording possible.

Well, something has to generate those coords, and something has to update
the UI before painting is finished.

I was asking more in terms of an API should look like. Interactive
paint is more involved than say, a bucket fill, which is easily translated
into to "call PDB bucket fill function on button release".

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

Reply via email to