On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 11:19 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:

> Rich text support would be a very useful and fun SOC project.
> It might require architectural agreement on how the rich text would
> be stored in the XCF (which might not be backward compatible).
> Is that a problem? Or is there already a model for that?

The text tool has been designed with that in mind. It shouldn't be
problematic to extend the text parasite in backward compatible way. The
current code ignores properties that it doesn't know about. As long as
the extended text attributes can somehow be serialized and deserialized
this should be unproblematic.

> When I saw the header I was hoping this covered things like
> remembering settings from the various save plug-ins (like, always
> show JPEG preview, always save exif, never save thumbnail).
> Turns out that's not covered -- but it would make a nice SOC project
> that would be very widely useful.

Yes, this would be very useful and has been on our list for quite a
while. Actually, a lot of the changes in 2.3 are working towards this
goal. Probably the best way to implement this in a way that makes it
easy for plug-in developers is to introduce an alternative PDB API. One
that has named, typed parameters with default values. If we base them on
GObject properties we can use the framework in libgimpconfig to
serialize and deserialize the plug-in values. It would become trivial to
even store multiple presets per plug-in. And it would make scripting a
lot more comfortable. Now the question is, can we define reasonable SoC
projects that help us to get there?


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to