Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia@nic.funet.fi) wrote:

From: Simon Budig

The Link you gave does not work.

Try now:
ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/audio/devel/constraints/ http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/audio/devel/constraints/

In fact there is a vector based infrastructure and I also believe that it is quite flexible. Simply fiddle a bit with the Path tool to get an idea how this works.

Could you read the sketchpad.pdf and check how it differs from how the path tool is handled?

It would be your task to explain to explain to me what you want. As I said earlier I am quite satisfied with the way it works now.

Also, the path tool deals with bezier curves, the paper does not. The path tool handles polygonal line segments, the paper does not (only single straight lines).

For circles a significant different way to handle them has become quite standard for vector applications. And I'd prefer to match the handling in other recent programs than a paper from 1963.

The constraints directory has other pdf papers of which you could read at least the introductory sections. They give some background and motivation.

Sorry, I won't go fishing for your wishes.

Bye, Simon

Hi,

Juhana Sadeharju writes:

Last I ckecked, your framework in Path Tool was not used in the rectangle selection tool nor in crop tool. Can you put your framework to a form in which I may use it to code new unirectangle and new crop tool for us? We need not to check new frameworks if existing ones are good enough; and they are good enough if they can be used to program new tools.

The fact that the new vectors architecture isn't more widely used yet doesn't mean that it can't be put to more use. The vectors framework in the GIMP core is very new and IMO it fits our needs. You haven't explained yet what exactly you don't like about it. If you actually tried to use it and failed then your complaints would make sense, but as it stands you are suggesting to replace a perfectly working framework with lots of potential by some vaporware. And so far you failed to give any reason why that should happen.

The papers you are pointing us at might be worth reading and they could certainly inspire us for new ideas. But I don't see why you keep bashing on the current vectors framework since obviosuly you didn't even look at it yet.

Sven

[while this is a rant, there is useful content in this mail]

Juhana Sadeharju (kouhia@nic.funet.fi) wrote:

From: Sven Neumann

bashing on the current vectors framework since obviosuly you didn't even look at it yet.

The Path Tool framework was just mentioned to me. Then I quickly re-checked out those papers if somebody would actually want read them now. Only a good intention. But I got flamed. I have not bashed the current vector framework because I have not seen it yet.

May I quote yourself?

"The selection tool vector drawing and the crop tool vector drawing are not visible in other views of the same image because the framework is kludge."

"[...] missing completely the point in this kludge code"

Calling something a "kludge" *is* bashing, especially when you did not even bother to look at it.

As I wrote earlier, I thought quite a lot about that stuff to get it right. I rewrote it two times basically from scratch. I worked on this for a really long time.

Now you come along, tell me that Gimps framework is a kludge and you did not even look at it, but suggest me to read dozends of pages to realize what is a cludge with my stuff.

And you expect me to take you seriously?

What I want is written very clearly in the intro sections of those mentioned papers (published at 199?; in constraints/ dir at my site). If you don't even have an idea of what I'm talking about, how ever I could go in to details?

It would be a good idea to explain the basic ideas in a comprehensible way.

The previous poster confused
at level of a basic stright line vs. a Bezier curve; missing completely the point in this kludge code vs. constraints code discussion (started in gimp-user).

The original post I replied to (on gimp-user) does not contain the word "constraint". In your second mail you also do not explain what you mean by "constraint". In your first mail you wrote:

"What we need is a good old vertex/edge/polygon framework."

We *have* a vertex/edge/polygon framework, and the edges even can be bezier segments, which is far more suitable for defining pretty common curved shapes. But you called this a "kludge". And now you complain that I get pissy?

No need to ask me to repeat. I have mailed on constraints in several mails within last months, but nobody informed me that constraints are already implemented in GIMP. I did not find them in a recent CVS code (taken february or march).

Sure I will check how the Path Tool stuff could be used in implementing the new tools. It just is not the vectors I want, but the powerful constraints framework. After installing the unirectangle geometry I don't want manipulate it at vector value level. Now unirectangle is simple stuff, but things gets more complicated if I need more complex tools. Some extra power would make things simpler. Read the papers for what I mean.

Please explain what a "unirectangle" is. A google search for this word turned up exactly one mail from you - where you don't explain it.

After looking at sketchpad.pdf again I understand that the "constraints" you are talking about seem to be relations between vector objects ("this rectangle has the same height as the length of this line", "these polygonal edges lie evenly spaced on a circle" etc. I believe "hints" in fonts are a similiar idea.

While this certainly could be useful for technical/mathematical drawings I don't see how this could be useful in an image manipulation context. If implemented for a program primarily intended for vector stuff (Skencil, Sodipodi) this might be very helpful, but in GIMP the primary goal for now is to create pixel based images - which is notoriously bad for above mentioned technical drawings.

So, unless you can bring up some compelling use cases for constraints in an image manipulation context, I don't believe that they will be implemented in the near future.

On the other and I am fully aware, that the vectors infrastructure in the GIMP could be more widely integrated. It should be fairly easy to implement rectanges and ellipses as vector objects. It definitely would be cool to have them used for Crop and the selection tools, but we need to iron out the usage scenario for adding/intersecting/substracting selections in connection with the ability to manipulate the vector shapes.

I am willing to continue this discussion, but not if you continue to call my stuff "kludge". And I don't want to read scientific publications to guess what your ideas are. You apparently are deeply into that stuff, so it should be fairly easy to you to bring up examples.

Bye, Simon