Subject: Re: gdk-pixbuf vs. ImageMagick
From: Paul Rohr (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2001 - 11:34:04 CDT
At 11:55 AM 4/26/01 -0400, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
>>2. Use system-specific services, such as the BeOS and QNX image munging
>>APIs. In this case, the XP API would be implemented by platform-specific
>>code to call those system services. This is what Thomas Fletcher has been
>>advocating, for obvious (and good) reasons.
>>5. Use gdk-pixbuf instead.
>>I'm not clear on what *you* mean by #5. Some folks seem to believe that
>>something like gdk-pixbuf could be ported to become a lighter-weight
>>solution than miniIM for all our platforms. If I read Dom correctly, he's
>>been proposing to only use gdk-pixbuf on GTK/GNOME.
>>For you, is #5 more like #4 or more like #2?
>I've been arguing for #5 to be a specific implementation of #2 - gdk-pixbuf
>is the system service.
Thanks for the confirmation Dom.
Now all I need to know is what Paolo was arguing. If he's also just talking
about #2, then we find ourselves in the truly odd situation where the only
person seriously considering #4 is ... Leonard, our resident IM guru.
Small world, huh? :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Apr 26 2001 - 11:26:47 CDT