Shouldn't the healing tool be derived from GimpCloneTool? It seems to be
similar enough. Perhaps you need to add a virtual function or two to the
clone tool. But then it should be possible to share most of the code by
deriving from it.
I think there is a possibility to do this and that it should be at least discussed.  The idea was presented before but it was decided that just getting a working implementation going is important enough for now.  But now that a working implementation is here, we can try and come up with something.
Another idea that was floated earlier mentioned that a GimpFromSourceTool (something that acts on data aquired from a CTRL-click source) could act as a super-class to the clone tool and healing brush, and handle any further, similar tools.  However, this approach would most likely be more difficult than deriving the healing brush from the clone tool.

What are the other points where it would need to be integrated.
I'm not sure.  I don't know the source code well enough to know this.  I just grepped for references to other tools and there are a lot of references to other tools where I don't reference the healing brush.  I don't know if this is an issue, or if it affects other places in GIMP.  It could be fine how it is, but like I said, I don't know the code well enough.

We first need to decide if we still want to accept this new tool for the
2.4 release. Otherwise it would have to be committed to a branch and
merged into HEAD after the stable release is done.
OK.  I think that it could be included in the next release with a little fine tuning.
One work constraint that I have is that I will be moving to Kenya on Sept. 16th to start an internship.  So, starting on Sept. 1st I won't be contributing much to the code until I get settled in the new environment.  I will be active on the mailing list though.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to