Hello there, at college, we used get_pixels for concurrency assignments where we used Ada. (Histogram analysis, shape detection and whatnot)
The problem I see with removing this is that you actually need to make a roundtrip from the GDK API to cairo_get_surface -> cairo_get_data which would not be a very obvious step from the API user point of view. If we are trying to keep things cairo internally, can't we just leave get_pixels as a wrapper around cairo's get_surface/get_data if that's how people are going to have to use it anyway? Cheers, Alberto 2010/9/3 Andrew Cowie <and...@operationaldynamics.com>: > On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 19:24 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: >> We deprecate get_pixels() which is the only call that can force the >> old-style representation to be created. If you do use get_pixels(), >> what's going to happen is... > > Deprecate¹ implies removal at either GTK 3.0 or GTK 4.0, right? > > So I guess the question I have is "is there ever a legitimate usage to > get the individual pixels". > > Our binding of this right now is: > http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/4.0/doc/api/org/gnome/gdk/Pixbuf.html#getPixels() > > which is mostly used by us for testing; I couldn't begin to guess what > other people have used it for; I do know one crew that actually did some > image recognition work (feeding some other library from these byte[]). > > We can kiss gdk_pixbuf_get_pixels() goodbye, no problem, but I'm just > curious what someone would replace it with... draw to a Cairo image > surface, save that to a PNG and then load it and... oh wait. :) > > As usually happens across the language barrier, we had to copy the array > anyway, so I'm not really fussed where we get it from. Or, are we > advised to tell developers "no more access to an image's pixels"? > > {shrug} > > AfC > Sydney > > > ¹ "deprecate" of course means "don't use this it's been replaced" or > just plain "don't use it" but in GTK during the long lifespan of 2.x > we've also used it to mean "we'd rather you didn't use it but it's still > ok"... because (until the last ~18 months) we were in > ain't-never-ever-gonna-remove-functions mode. > > Now we're actually removing stuff! Who would have thunk it :) > > I think there's some inconsistency in our library as a result of this. A > number of times over the last few months Javier has had his enthusiasm > pushed back when he's seen "rather you didn't use this", not known "it's > still ok", and thought it should be removed only to be told to leave it > alone. > > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
