Re: What's the future of EOG? Has EOG a roadmap?

[Felix Riemann <friemann gnome org>]

Am Donnerstag, den 23.08.2012, 20:20 +0200 schrieb Deskblue Software -
Javier Sánchez:
> Hi guys,

Hi!

> After some bugs fixed and some time working on a patch to fix the bug
> #321603 preload files, I have some questions:
> 
> 1) I think that it's necessary to refactor some components. For example:
> Make a change into EogWindow is a knightmare because it has a lot of
> older and tangled code.

Another prime example of stuff you don't want to touch in its current
state would be the image loading code.

> 2) Other components, like EogScrollView, contain some deprecated code. I
> think that it's necessary to update this components as is proposed by
> the bug #546504 - clutter backend.

Hmm, 

> 3) Fix bugs like #321603 - preload files is very difficult if we don't
> change the current architecture. For example: We can replace
> EogListStore, EogThumbNav and EogThumbView with the new components
> EogNavigator and EogNavigatorView which have an API for image
> management, image collection management and image navigation.

The job running system is also in the way of quite some feature
requests/bugfixes as it is very limited (only one job at a time, pretty
much uninterruptible). It is also very decoupled from the objects it
works on. For example there exists no direct connection from an image to
the job that does the loading/saving/transforming/etc.

I wanted to refactor it for quite some time (I think it's years
already), but never really found the necessary time for it. :( 

The *Navigator* classes are something you wrote for the preloading
feature?

> 4) Eog hasn't had major changes since 2.20, when was include support for
> plugins, editable toolbar or printing for multiple images.

Well, I'd say this depends on how you define major. For example the move
from 2.x to 3.x also brought an improved drawing system with it. The
change wasn't very huge codewise but was still quite intrusive as it
touched some of our "inner-core" functions.

Also eog-2.20 was a really huge refactoring and was actually in
development for roughly 1.5 years before the first stable release came
out. Not sure if it's a good comparision point.

> For this reasons, I think that it would be a good idea to define our
> roadmap and update the eog wiki. Maybe, we have to discuss what's the
> future of EOG and what we can to do to have a modern image viewer.
> 
> What do you think?

Very good idea.
I'm absolutely open for this. Might actually help getting ideas a bit
more lined out and maybe even attract other/new contributors.

Regards,

Felix