[KPhotoAlbum] Very experimental image-grouping patch

[Paul Fleischer]

2007/11/29, Tero Tilus <tero at tilus.net>:
> 2007-11-29 00:07, Paul Fleischer:
> > > Concept 1, "this image is derived from that one"
> > Conceptually, this is what I would prefer.
>
> If that's where we are heading, it's conceptually correct to use
> parent-child one-to-many mapping as a starting point (and maybe at
> some point extend it to many-to-many) and use terms "derivative"
> ("child") and "master" ("parent", "source"?).

Now that I think about it, it would be quite easy to have multiple
parents as well. Main issue is how to handle it in the user-interface.

> > > Concept 2, "series of exposures"
> >
> > I really like having native groups, rather than the hacky
> > parent/child relationsship my patch contains.
>
> Well, it is "hacky" only if we are trying to model this (concept 2).
> I'd think it is pretty good first step if we are pursuing the concept
> 1.

Interesting, I didn't think about it that way.

> > Without knowing the KPA source code very well, I would also say that
> > this is quite easily implemented. So, this is what I would prefer in
> > practice.
>
> Uhm.  It appears to me as if you were conflicting yourself.  Concept
> of "derivative work" and native groups at implementation level do not
> match.

Hmm, might be, it was late at the time of writing :-). What I was
trying to say is that I conceptually prefer the derived-work concept.
But in practice I think grouping images is much easier to deal with,
implementation and interaction wise.

> If you'd prefer the concept of "derivative work", groups are imo wrong
> thing to start with because it is a dead end if you want to reach that
> concept.  Having "master" (or "source" or "parent"), as you have done,
> is imo right way to start.

I think you're right. The thing that annoys me with having masters and
derivates is that you often want a derivate to show up as default, and
hide the master -- for instance, when you have a raw image and a
preprocessed one. This seems somewhat counterintuitive to the concept.
But I'll try to see if I can come up with a clean solution.

> Rock on!

Thanks :-)

/Paul