On Jan 26, 2008 12:53 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 4:54 PM, David Gowers wrote:
> > In short -- what you call 'action recording', I call 'packaging up a
> > chunk of the undo stack'. Really, your 'start' and 'stop' actions
> > would be trivial to implement:
> > mark the start location in undo stack; mark the end; and prompt the
> > user for a filename. Applying them is similarly trivial (choose an
> > action, load it, append to the undo stack)
> That makes sense :) But then GEGL needs ops for handling selection,
> masks, paths, text... - everything that is now accessible via PDB and
> more. I'm not that technically experienced to say if those procedures
> are all exposable as ops.
The only thing that is not, of that list, is path modification.
'selection to path'
'selection from path'
would both work as ops, Anything that doesn't deal directly in image data
(eg. adding/removing points from a path) would not work as an op, so
that includes things like gradients, parasites, palettes. The main
beneficiary could be plug-ins; most of them could be implemented as
ops. (notable exception is GIMP-GAP, which has a unique position in
that it tends to edit the image structure/associated files rather than
pixel data directly.)
I would guess though, that we might end up having many PDB entries
that are not required, for convenience. Though I think the main
benefit of this would be
easily rememberable names for combinations of ops -- which may be
better done by just a system to remember op combinations under a
Gimp-developer mailing list