> No, it's only destructive if we have no way of regenerating the cache as 
> needed.
> With GEGL, we can cache just at the newest node in the graph. Stroke
> information can be fully stored in the node.

I'm confused.
>From my understanding, if stroke information is stored in the node,
then the stroke can be regenerated, and that operation will be
non-destructive since the cache can be regenerated. I think David says
about "non-destructive" brush operation.
I saw source code of gegl-paint. It seems that gegl_vector stores the
information of the path, so I think it is also about non-destructive
brush tool.

On the other hand, Øyvind says that we can implement "destructive"
brush. I think being "destructive" implies that there's no way to
regenerate the stroke since being able to regenerate the stroke means
that the cache is regeneratable, so the operation must not have any
path information.
My concern is about this case.

Let's say, If the following operation sequences are executed, how can
we undo and redo the brush operation (C) and (D)? And what will happen
if we change the prarameter of the operation (B)?
(A) load an image from external resource.
(B) do filter operation, "non-destructive."
(C) do brush operation, "destructive."
(D) do another brush operation, "destructive."
(E) do filter operation, "non-destructive."

If my assumption is wrong, please let me know.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to