> >  gnome-font    for font-rendering (don't know if gnome-2.0 will have
> >  this)
>  I doubt that this would be of any real use, we want to have first class
>  rendering into GIMP with no eye on speed and such opposing to the
>  font-rendering of applications where rerendering happens quite often...

This is supposed to be first class font-rendering and if it prooves to
be useful, I see no reason not to use it, even it has gnome printed on it.

> > gnome-canvas  for the UI (he draw routines we use on the gimp
> > canvas are very difficult to handle, using objects that can be connected
> > to and emit signals would make our live much easier)
>  I didn't really get your point here....

Look into the code that handles the bezier_curves UI. A good part of 
that code is doing nothing but checking if the mouse is on a
control-point. Now imagine the control-points were objects that emit 
signals like enter, leave, clicked etc. Do you start getting my point?
And there's a lot more you can do with the gnome-canvas...

> >  libart        provides convenient and optimized functions for all
> > sorts of affine transformations
>  Okay, I wouldn't even mind to make libart mandantory...

Why? libart was developed explictely to work w/o gnome-libs. It's an
extremly useful library that fits perfectly to our needs.

> > gdk-pixbuf   
> > image-loading and simple (but fast) transformations (we may want
> > to use this to implement a proper brush and patterns system
> > since it integrates nicely with libart which would give us
> > scalable, rotatable brushes/patterns for free)
>  Optionally this would be okay, although I prefer Rastermans Imlib2...
>  It may be that gdk-pixbuf focuses too much on the needs of a desktop
>  or were there any other reasons to go away from Imlib?

All I know about Imlib2 is that is has a lot of features we will never
need. I don't see why gdk-pixbuf looks desktop-centric to you, but it
certainly has a small memory-footprint, is fast and it integrates nicely
with GTK+.

> >  gconf         for configuration (have a look into the code for the 
> >                preferences-dialog, it sucks badly ...)
>  I think the preferences dialog is very nice, anyway I'd prefer using
>  XML as a save format for configureations and even for scripts. This would
>  make macro recording possible...
>  But having a centric configuration possibility for GIMP doesn't make
>  any sense to me.... anyone out there who would like to configure it via
>  GNOMEs control-center or via console? :)) 

Did I say control-center? Daniel, this is FUD! You talk about using XML. 
Do you want to write your own parser? I'm not advertising gnome-conf
since I don't know much about it, I just mentioned it as an example of 
stuff that might be of interest. 

Let's argue about using GNOME. It does not make sense to turn your head
only if something has GNOME written on it. And remember: this has nothing
to do with the desktop, the control-center or whatever. All we are 
talking about is if we want to use selected parts of the libraries that 
evolved around gnome. The good thing about these libs is that they are 
maintained and integrate nicely with GTK+ and its object system.

As said before, a lot depends on the will of the GNOME people to release
those libs in small packages without throwing too much gnome-specific 
stuff into them. I think we would already use the canvas now if it would 
have been released seperately.

My list of stuff that is IMHO definitely worth to be considered:

 (gnome-xml)    <- not sure if we will need this one
 gnome-font     <- when it becomes available and looks suitable

With the execption of the canvas all this is AFAIK already available
outside of gnome-libs. 

Salut, Sven

Reply via email to