On Tuesday 23 November 2004 23:44, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So the suggestion taht arised is to have a paint tool that reads
> > what it will do from plain text files. These plain text files
> > will be stored in a collection in their own directory, just like
> > script-fus have one, brushes have one. curves have another.
> Let's see. If I argue that it would be too much hazzle to add a
> plug-in framework, the alternative solution you come up with is to
> integrate a text file parser that compiles a procedural brush on
> the fly? Are you joking or can't you see yourself that this is an
> order of magnitude more complex and still a lot less flexible than
> the initial proposal?
I was not joking and I can see it is both more complex, and less
flexible than the callback suggested.
What made me suggest this is that:
1) It will be all 'enclosed' in the new tool- and require new code
that I can at least imagine how could be done.
2) In this way creating a new paint 'effect' will be a lot easier
than writting a plugin.
Anyway, I think this discussion can rest for a while now. Since you
are so willing to help some more people to be able to hack on the
core, let's move to a more simple issue - bug #158666.
I will write about it on another e-mail.
Gimp-developer mailing list