28 Feb
2005
28 Feb
'05
12:17 a.m.
Op zondag 27 februari 2005 13:28, schreef Stefan Nagtegaal: > After having studied more and more of the new image(-api|.module), i > have some concerns, which are: > - We currently assume that everybody has at least GD 2.0, which is a bad > thing imo. > Imo we should move the GD 2.0 functions like > image_gd_(settings|resize|rotate|crop|open|close) into a separate > image.gd2.inc and make a image.gd1.inc file. just like we did for the > ImageMagick, which currently lives in silence under Walkah's Sandbox... We should always offer the most used as default. People on old hosts should just read a little on how to get gd1 running. >[...] > In my opinion this _really_ is a theme issue, so it would be nicef there > could be a way how we can deal with this in that place.. But, I'm sure > that this needs more thought.. Definately not!. * Imagine an MP3: If you want to present only a snippet of that file, you need to edit it. Nothing to do with themes. This case is very similar to what you do in the oude-doos. It is definately an image editing function. * on output editing of images is very bad. Something like your oude-doos should never ve done on-output. > In the meanwhile everybody is free to rewrite and modify a > image.$name.inc file which does exactly what you want.. > Still, I think that's not quite optimal... What is not optimal about it? The method of working, or the module system? Regards, Bèr -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]