[Kdenlive-devel] moved here from kde-multimedia (was Re: Multimedia Frameworks)

[Christian Berger]

Am Donnerstag, 24. Oktober 2002 17:36 schrieben Sie:
> On Thursday 24 October 2002 03:23 pm, Jason Wood wrote:
> > Yes you could and should extend at least my GUI, but what I mean is
> > that it is not going to make the computer crash'n'burn if the GUI
> > doesn't know about some advanced feature in the engine.
>
> ;-)
>
> > > Easy. But my engine can do _much_ more already. And of course I
> > > don't want to get the features burried because the XML can't handle
> > > them ;-)
> >
> > What kind of things are you talking about here? Is it a case of
> > transitions, effects, etc?
>
> Yes. My goal is neither an engine nor a GUI, I want a video solution. I
> will not work on effects for an engine I cannot use in the GUI. If
> somebody else wants a gui that ignores half of the features, ok, I would
> say that both needs to go hand in hand.

Well the GUI can do all effects by definition. An effect is just like a 
function in a compiler. You have inputs and parameters and a name. Maybe 
later even something which specifies how the effects should be previewed 
in the engine.

> > I agree, but don't feel that you have to change to QT just to match
> > the GUI - if a Gnome GUI comes along and used your engine, they will
> > still have dependencies on both toolkits.
>
> Well, I am not as optimistic with this multi GUI multi engine solution
> as you are, but anyway for me there are also other reasons to switch to
> QT. Mainly Font handling and rendering and QDom. RIght now I use
> libxml++ to persist the renmder tree, but this is suboptimal.

Well font rendering might be a little problem, but maybe we can call 
external programms for that. For example Gimp. 

Servus
  Casandro

-- 
Warning! (this is no commercial ad)
This e-mail probably will be read by secret services.
Therefore please get pgp or gnupg and send me 
your public key so we e-mail encryptedly.
http://www.gnupg.org/