Re: [Gegl-developer] TODO for GEGL 0.3

[Øyvind Kolås <pippin gimp org>]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Téo Mazars <teomazars gmail com> wrote:
> I am not convinced. The way it's done is fine in my opinion, mainly because
> it doesn't duplicate the implementation. What you suggest would be to create
> specialized meta operations foo-linear and foo-perceptual on top of foo with
> fixed "srgb" parameters and to hide foo... Right? I am not sure why this
> would help for anything, but I don't see anything wrong.

Do note that compositors/layer modes being parameter-less permits
doing things like more easily using them as properties of
other/meta-nodes using these ops internally, if the behavior changes
based on an additional boolean we do not get that. It also means that
for a directly generated UI based on GEGL data-structures; this
boolean toggle would is exposed.

The desire to do any (compositing) ops in arbitrary color spaces is
what should be dealt with by wrapping things in meta-ops; permitting
to cast data to CIE Lab, sRGB or even HSV. In the case of over and
other standard layer-mode ops, I would rather duplicate the
implementation - considering them to be actually different compositing
ops. The amount of actual code duplication should amount to _one_
additional line in the ruby code that generates most of GEGLs
compositing operations.


/pippin