Sven Neumann wrote:
> There are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though:
>  - How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed?
"Reset default brushes" button somewhere near brushes paths in 
preferences that recopies them. Or the user can manually copy the ones 
user wants from the system wide readable profile sample.
>  - How can we make sure that scripts don't break.
"api" brushes that are unlisted in UI, but available by name for scripts.
>  - Is copying really the best solution?
Simple. IMHO yes.

>>  > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them
>>  > being available in their original size and shape.
>> If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant 
>> they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one 
>> benefit.
> That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that
> allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we
> could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the
> appropriate brush on the fly.
Scripts may rely on the existence of default bitmap brushes as well as 
parametric ones, so allowing dynamic creation of the brush by name feels 
far from a generic solution, tho it would be a good feature to have. 
Having an "api" brushes folder would IMHO be much more cleaner and allow 
for script creators to make use of it.

-- Alexia
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to