Re: Gdk-pixbuf savers?

On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 01:04:41PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > I have to agree with Federico here. Unless the image libs itnerface is
> > sufficently braindead or hard to use it really doesn't help anything to have
> > an extremely thin wrapper that does absolutely no abstraction except for
> > having all the names begin with gdk_pixbuf_.  If saving does require all
> > kinds of weird code that can be done in gdk_pixbuf then it should be there.
> > If the saving function are just gonna call an image library saving function
> > with the same exact arguments, then it makes no sense to have these
> > functions.
> A cheesy PNG saver that didn't take any parameters (just saved in RGB or
> RGBA, raw data basically) would be convenient (using libpng directly is a
> lot of docs to read), plus save people I'd guess 40-50 lines of
> hard-to-write error-prone code. Also it would keep libpng dynamically
> loaded, instead of requiring a link at startup.

If it takes 40-50 lines to save an image, that by my above meassure it would
be ugly enough and would qualify for gdk_pixbuf inclusion.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]