Re: gdk_pixbuf and comments ?

[Tim Janik <timj gtk org>]

On 6 Aug 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:

> 
> Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:
> 
> > On 6 Aug 2001, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> writes:
> > > 
> > > > I think one way we discussed doing this was similar to the properties
> > > > passed to gdk_pixbuf_save() - there would be loader-specific named
> > > > fields you could retrieve from images.
> > > > 
> > > > Something like:
> > > >  gchar *comment = gdk_pixbuf_get_extra_field (pixbuf, "comment");
> > > > 
> > > > Then it's a bit more extensible. That seems a bit lame though, we may
> > > > have had the details hashed out a bit better in the past.
> > > 
> > > I would prefer a cleaner API, but I wouldn't object to this solution. We
> > > could then define a small set of common property names for standard
> > > stuff like comment, gamma, resolution as we do in GIMP for parasites.
> > > I'll have a look at the gdk-pixbuf-save() implementation...
> > 
> > i'd agree that just supporting comments feels cleaner.
> > in general, one can't set different types of parasites on images,
> > so i find an API indicating so misleading.
> 
> Resolution? Modification time? (png supports both) Image formats can

sure, but what supports xpm?

> support a lot of different things - while text properties aren't a
> nice clean API, they are very extensible for this type of thing.
> 
> (Note that properties can be stored in object data, so there
> is no reason to add extra fields to the pixbuf structure,
> which is frequently used for pixbufs not created from files
> at all.)

i'm not worried about sizeof(GdkPixbuf) and certainly know
object data, i meant to adress API issues ;)

> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen
> 

---
ciaoTJ