Subject: Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick
From: Hubert Figuiere (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 08:05:44 CDT
According to Paul Rohr <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> However, I believe that there could still be as many as three proposals on
> the table for XP implementations of that to-be-specified API:
> A. We roll our own on top of libjpeg et al. We do all the work, but can
> make as efficient a codepath as we like.
> B. Something like an XP version of gdk-pixbuf. I can't tell if anyone's
> advocating this, but if they did, the argument for this would seem to be
> that it's less work than rolling our own, and also more efficient than IM.
B. is not worth the effort. gdk-pixbuf uses libjpeg and libpng AFAIK. And
gdk-pixbuf rely on gdk and glib. So using it in XP who require to
bring gdk and glib to XP, which is not what we want. We'd better
wrap ourself around libjpeg and libpng.
> C. We just use ImageMagick or miniIM. This is probably the most complete,
> but seems to have bloat worries.
The only advantage IM have over wrapping around individual libraries
is to allow making one converter/rasterizer for lot of file formats.
Making A easier to implement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 08:06:31 CDT