I don't find the branch idea to be a great one, because what appears to be already happening is everyone is using their own branches, and the one in the tree, which is the one that people new to the project will use, is being left to rot. David's criticism of that optimization is valid, I'll be adding a MAX_WIDTH and MAX_HEIGHT, so that both of us are satisfied. All of my allocation changes are already in tree, and this one is the only one that we both agree was a "badly implemented idea". David's right to call me on it. thats why we put the "mail-patches" policy in place, right?
The reason i haven't jumped on your idea, is I didn't find it very unixy at all, first read through. To me, interprocess communication UNIX-style is done by chaining lots of pipes together. and what you're talking about sounded more bi-directional than the normal UNIX softwares. XML and unixy don't quite go hand-in-hand, but now that i re-read your mail, i agree that something along the described lines would certainly be better than what we have. I agree the feature extractor should be working in lists, but I've been avoiding structural changes, so as to get something in the tree everyone can agree on. In an ideal world, the command line arguments, and the input streams for the feature extractor, the re-sizer, and the thumb-nailer should be close to identical. If its desired, once I'm done putting in my optimizations to the feature extractor, instead of increasing the feature extractor's resolution, I'll work on a re-sizer and a thumb-nailer, and re-build the front-end to the feature extractor along these lines. Technically, its working against my own interests (all my images are way bigger than 256x256), but it'll possibly be of more use to others, and I am new here, so. ;) that said, how goes the 64bit work? I've got an associate who'd love to play with gift, but cannot, due to 64bit problems... anyone have any comments on my 70-* and 80-* optimizations? 80 is the real brain twister. Julia Longtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:36:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > Just very shortly: I did not read the whole discussion I do see both sides a > bit and I find the branch idea not bad. Even better I would find if someone > would look at gift-feature-extraction.pl and hack it in the way I suggested > some while back (having a feature extraction server doing pipe-based IPC with > a perl script feeding it image lists). I think this would give *much* more > than a factor of two in speed, and probably some of the nastier optimisations > in question would get at least partly obsolete, as allocation would take only > at the beginning of the FE process. > > Julia and others, for testing this would mean that you come up with a file > format for lists of filenames (e.g. one file, one line, or something > XML-based) and then extract features for all files in the list. Equally > welcome would be a resizer and a thumbnailer that would work in a similar > fashion. So we would get something quite gnunixy, small tools doing IPC and > working together. > > Any comments? > > Cheers, > Wolfgang > > P.S. I will be even less online starting tomorrow evening (latest). > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > help-GIFT mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gift _______________________________________________ help-GIFT mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gift
