On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:33:20 +0100, Kevin Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sven Neumann wrote:
>> If I understood Kevin correctly the long-term goal for Tiny-Fu is to
>> start the interpreter on demand for each script that is executed. So at
>> some point scripts will behave more like plug-ins.
> That is one of the goals I have in mind for the Script-Fu plug-in.
First of all thanks for your efforts , you seem to have been working on
all this for a long time now.
One thing that concerns me with Gimp development in general and of which
these changes are a good example is lack of concern for backwards
A lot of people have contributed in one way or another to gimp over time
but that does not mean they will always be here or be able to provide
never ending support for things , like a plugin, they have contributed.
There was a powerful suite of plugins written by a German maths doctor
that got dropped a long time back. It seemed, having done the job once ,
he did not have the time to redo it when gimp decided to change the
There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface with
gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously unfinished
as far as the print dlg goes yet it seems I still cannot use gutenprint
with 2.2 . Net result I can't use my printer with gimp. As I understood
that rather contentious exchanges between Sven and the gp lead dev this
was because there were incompatible changes in the API. (If there's a way
around this please correct me, and please do not take this as an attempt
to reopen the heated arguements this issue invovled. The issue is that of
continuity vs breakage).
There are quite obvious issues with running everything in the same name
space. Surely the best way to address this issue would be to run a
separate instance of the interpreter rather than put new conditions on the
scripts that breaks a number of the ones in the registry and very likely
at lot that are not. This would seem to be a work around for a flaw in the
way gimp handles this.
Since this is one of your goals anyway , wouldn't it save a lot of effort
all round and preserve a number of plugins that may not get ported across,
if this could be brought forward?
You seem to have a lot of skill and familiarity with this area , is this
an enormous undertaking ?
Gimp-developer mailing list