Re: Gdk-pixbuf savers?

[Lyndon Drake <lyndon stat auckland ac nz>]

On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 01:04:41PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, George 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.
> 
> I don't see any point in a full-featured save interface either though, it
> should just be good enough for something like gnome-iconedit or screen
> shots, then you can use a real application (such as Gimp or EOG) to
> convert to other formats.

I think that something simple like this would really be good, just to make
it easy for application developers to dump images into a file.  Most users
don't need to be able to save in 20 different formats, and there are plenty
of image format conversion applications available for those that want to
use an obscure format.

-- 
Lyndon Drake                       | Desktop:      http://www.gnome.org
isenguard                          | Mail client:  http://www.mutt.org
ICQ#: 12558803                     | Editor:       http://www.vim.org
http://stat.auckland.ac.nz/~lyndon | OS:           http://www.linux.com