[drupal-devel] [task] Core image handling
Dries
drupal-devel at drupal.org
Mon Jan 31 22:47:35 UTC 2005
Project: Drupal
Version: cvs
Component: base system
Category: tasks
Priority: normal
Assigned to: walkah
Reported by: walkah
Updated by: Dries
Status: patch
I'm slightly unhappy with the new settings. They are inconsistent with
the upload.module that does define its own settings (eg. 'maximum file
size') rather than defining system-wide settings/defaults (eg. the
proposed 'maximum image resolution'). To me, it makes sense to (i)
group all file-related settings on the same page and (ii) to be
consistent with regard to system-wide defaults.
Dries
Previous comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 28, 2005 - 22:31 : walkah
Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/image_0.inc (7.44 KB)
Due to popular demand - attached here is an image.inc for inclusion (in
includes/), that will offer some basic image detection and manipulation
functionality to drupal's core.
currently image.inc is responsible for managing image 'toolkits' -
these are either PHP modules (e.g. GD) or external programs (e.g.
imagemagick) that handle the actual manipulation of images. also
included is the default "GD" toolkit (that supports both GD1 or GD2,
depending on which is installed). PHP comes bundled with gd as of
version 4.3 - therefore this is a reasonable default. However, other
toolkits will follow (I presume) - they can be installed in includes/
(as image.$toolkit.inc).
There are 5 main functions that modules may now utilize to handle
images:
* image_get_info() - this function checks a file - if it exists and is
a valid image file , it will return an array containing things like the
pixel dimensions of the image, plus the 'type' and common extension.
* image_scale - resizes a given image to fit within a given width /
height dimensions, while maintaining aspect ratio (not distorting the
image). - this function can be used to generate thumbnails, or ensure a
maximum resolution, etc.
* image_resize - similar to image_scale (but will not respect aspect
ratio - may well distort the image).
* image_rotate - rotate an image by X degrees
* image_crop - crops an image to a given rectangle (defined as top-left
x/y coordinates plus a width & height of the rectangle).
In a follow up I will post a patch that does the following:
* adds some default settings to admin/settings :
* toolkit selection (and possibly configuration)
* default thumbnail dimensions (WxH) - to be used as a system-wide
default
* maximum dimensions (WxH ) - to be used as a system-wide default
* changes the user picture handling to silently resize uploaded
pictures to fit within the specified dimensions (rather than throwing
errors).
* uses image_get_info() to verify logo uploads in admin/theme
configuration
* patches upload.module to respect maximum dimensions for uploaded
images.
Contribution modules will now be able to rely on these base
manipulation functions to offer additional functionality (such as image
nodes, photo galleries, advanced image manipulation, etc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 28, 2005 - 22:50 : walkah
Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/image-core.patch (7.22 KB)
and the patch (as mentioned above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 29, 2005 - 02:41 : rkendall
Thanks for that, I think I could find that useful.
Not meaning to criticize your very nice looking work, but I don't quite
get the use of the /ext/ info in image_get_info() , it just seems to be
duplicating information from the /type/ info.
Thanks again,
Ross.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 29, 2005 - 14:13 : walkah
'type' - is used primarily by the gd functions, which open image files
using createFromPng / createFromJPEG / etc... and they use 'JPEG' not
'JPG'
'ext' - is the common file extension - i.e. 'JPG' not 'JPEG'.
i agree, kind of a shame, but mostly harmless (imo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 30, 2005 - 20:07 : Dries
Please rename 'ext' to 'extension' and document the difference between
'type' and 'extension'. It is confusing at best.
Personally, I prefer to use 'resolution' instead of 'res', and
'destination' instead of 'dest'.
The punctuation in the PHPdoc code seems random: some sentences end
with a point, others do not.
Some code seems to wrap but that might be due to the fact that the
image.inc file has been uploaded with the wrong MIME-type.
Otherwise this patch looks good, but I haven't really tested it yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 16:44 : Bèr Kessels
Is there a good reason for introducing YAPS (yet another plugin system)
and not using tour well tested, optimised and wellknown .module system
for the toolkits?
Is there really a differerence in performance and complexity between:
image.$toolkit.inc and
image_gd.module?
If not, please (with sugar on top and such), we should not make
more/new plugin systems.
Bèr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 16:45 : Bèr Kessels
forgot:
But other than that, great work, a big +1 from me to go into core.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 16:58 : walkah
ber - re the toolkit "framework" vs. modules - the issue is that there
is 0 overlap between toolkit functionality and the current set of
module hooks. also, the point of image.inc is to encapsulate the
toolkit functionality so that module developers, etc need not worry
about which toolkit(s) are installed and available.
i'm not sure, though, that toolkits really fit as modules. i.e. can you
throttle a toolkit? is there any case where a toolkit could or should
implement /any/ of the current module hooks?
anyone else have some thoughts on this?
I think polluting the module namespace with a ton of image support
files would be worse than the 20 or so lines to implement this "custom
plugin" framework. maybe i'm off base though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 17:08 : moshe weitzman
i agree that the toolkit framework proposed here is justified. This is a
plugin system just like our DB abstraction layer, which has served us
very well. It is also analogous to the flexinode plugin system, which
everyone seems to love. +1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 17:08 : killes at www.drop.org
I don't think having the .inc files as modules makes sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 17:08 : adrian
I agree with you and dries on this one.
This is kind of analogous to the file api, whereby this api just
extends file support, for image filetypes.
Any modules can then be built to use images , for instance the
image.module which just becomes an image node type, and the flexinode
image field type.
Plus, having it in core and maintained as such is a big improvement
over the current situation (re: the old image module)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 17:41 : walkah
Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/image_1.inc (7.64 KB)
attached is an updated image.inc - taking into consideration dries'
suggestions. biggest is : removing 'type' from image_get_info - moving
that to the GD functions where the jpg vs. JPEG distinction is
required.
also, tried to clean up some phpdoc comments, and use "destination" and
"extension" instead of "dest" and "ext".
(updated patch to follow).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 17:41 : walkah
Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/image-core2.patch (7.25 KB)
here's the updated patch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 18:08 : stefan nagtegaal
Okay, I tested the patch and it works like a charm!
Still, i like to see some things changed:
- You set the default thumbnail dimension to 100x100, set this to
180x120 which is also a 4:3 ratio (just like the suggested max image
dimension 640x480);
- In your descriptions you use 'WIDTHxHEIGHT', which is in no other
core module used like this. IMO you should use lowercase characters and
introduce separate textboxes for $width and $height, or something...
I only could find these 2 nitpic, which is absolutely a very big +1
from my side. As a photographers point of view this is a very big step
forward for drupal..
Thank you for all the work you put into this patch, I know you worked
hard on this..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 31, 2005 - 19:02 : rkendall
Comment on the default thumbnail resolution:
I think 100x100 is fine, as far as I can tell it _does_ maintain aspect
ratio. I don't think a thumbnail should presume that an image will be a
particular aspect ratio, or that it will be landscape or portrait.
If anything, I would say that the default 'image_max_resolution' should
be something like 640x640! (as in, mixing 640x480 with 480x640 would be
reasonable expectation).
Anyway, people can set it to whatever they want.
just my 0.2 cents.
--
View: http://drupal.org/node/16358
Edit: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/16358
More information about the drupal-devel
mailing list