RE: [Nautilus-list] Thumbnail managing draft

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Ryan Muldoon wrote:

> Although Darin did a very good job of offering some suggestions, I'd like to
> add a few thoughts of my own.
> I agree with Darin's sentiment - why have two versions of the thumbnail?  It
> seems like the relative rendering cost of a larger file isn't worth the
> added complexity.  Not only does this complicate the file structure, and
> increase space taken up on the hard drive, but now we have to quantify what
> "low quality" and "high quality" are.

Well, for me low quality is a non antialised image and high quality is
antialised. I admit that this wasn't mentioned in the draft, have to add

> It seems like a lot of work without
> much real benefit.

Ask the people with a 100Mhz pentium machine about this ;-).

> And, as this should ideally be adopted by as many
> projects as possible, the simpler the standard, the more likely people will
> use it. ;-)

Yes, this is the goal :-).

> Also, the .failed files also seem to introduce more problems than they
> solve.  With a .failed file, you have to worry about locking, and, as Darin
> astutely pointed out, when one program fails, it doesn't mean that another
> will.  Nautilus may choke on a file that the Gimp can handle just fine.
> I like the idea of setting the mtime and file permissions to be the same as
> the original image.  I would probably just have equality checking do
> 	if (thumb.mtime != orig.mtime)
> 		generate_thumbnail(orig);
> rather than
> 	if (thumb.mtime < orig.mtime)
> 		generate_thumbnail(orig);
> because all you really care about is that they are in sync with each other.
> So if they aren't, fix it.

I wasn't clear on this. The algorithm I propose is the '!=' one. Have to
rework this, to make it clearer.

> I very much like the idea of multiple thumbnail sizes, as I think that
> icons in general should be available in a variety of sizes, to avoid
> ugly scaling. But I'd make the largest size 196x196 rather than
> 160x160.  That seems to be what icon people are doing already.

I will add this.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]