David Neary wrote:
Perhaps I'm being over-simplistic, but couldn't we go for the
partial solution of just recording plug-in events, via the
existing PDB interface, and get ourselves most of the
functionality that people need for very little effort?
It's really not all that useful if we don't have p
Hi,
Kelly Martin wrote:
> Manish Singh wrote:
> >I was asking more in terms of an API should look like. Interactive
> >paint is more involved than say, a bucket fill, which is easily translated
> >into to "call PDB bucket fill function on button release".
>
> Especially when you consider the airb
* Kelly Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040326 21:12]:
> Manish Singh wrote:
>
> >We could simply bypass the pdb for painting, and just emit "record this"
> >on button release. But maybe it'd be better to have the pdb more involved,
> >I dunno.
>
> You'd at least have to serialize all the events for
Manish Singh wrote:
We could simply bypass the pdb for painting, and just emit "record this"
on button release. But maybe it'd be better to have the pdb more involved,
I dunno.
You'd at least have to serialize all the events for the paintbrush and airbrush
if you want the macro to be brush- and c
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 06:53:28PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> >> Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, something has to generate those coords, and something has to update
> > the UI before painting is finished.
> >
> > I was asking more in terms of an API should look like. Intera
Manish Singh wrote:
I was asking more in terms of an API should look like. Interactive
paint is more involved than say, a bucket fill, which is easily translated
into to "call PDB bucket fill function on button release".
Especially when you consider the airbrush, which has time sensitivity as well
Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
>> Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Mar
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
>> > > What requirements would the new PDB have?
>> >
>> > There's a number
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
> > > What requirements would the new PDB have?
> >
> > There's a number of issues to be addressed, like GEGL node support
10 matches
Mail list logo
