jgimp-developers — List for announcements, questions, and general discussion for JGimp

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Michael A. T. <mt...@cc...>]

Sam -

Thanks :) I didn't get this impression at all, I just wanted to say where
it is and is not useful, to make it clear what I view as the best use of
the project.

Mike
			-Michael Andrew Terry (mt...@cc...)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam Richards wrote:

> I do want to stress, I do not want to give you the impression that your
> project is without merit.
> It does seem cool and definately worth keeping an eye on, since I am sure
> there are numerous other applications for this stuff, especially if you are
> eventually able to use it to do some simple image processing without
> requiring gimp.
>
> Sam.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Andrew Terry [mailto:mt...@cc...]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:09 PM
> > To: 'jgi...@li...'
> > Subject: RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> >
> >
> > Sam -
> >
> > I agree with your assessment -- there are a number of aspects of JGimp
> > that make its inclusion as the default language binding for
> > scripts and
> > plug-ins problematic. From the developer's perspective, Java
> > is simply not
> > a scripting language -- it is a strongly typed language which
> > makes it a
> > clunky tool for writing quick scripts. From a Film Gimp deployment
> > perspective, it is troublesome because: a) you cannot assume
> > everyone will
> > have Java on their machine (and the current version at that),
> > and b) Java
> > is not an open source software project that everyone will
> > have on their
> > favorite Unix CD for a quick install (and there are no open source
> > versions worthy of consideration at this point). These characteristics
> > raise the barrier to having a working installation "out of
> > the box" and
> > prevent users from quickly and easily getting to the point
> > where they can
> > write scripts. Obviously, these are not impediments you want to have
> > between your application and your user base. For these
> > reasons, I agree
> > with you -- it does not make sense to have JGimp as the primary,
> > default "scripting" language for Film Gimp.
> >
> > I should note that this does not mean JGimp is completely
> > without purpose.
> > It does exactly what we need for our research purposes --
> > provide a way to
> > use the GIMP from Java. But as a general-purpose, quick-and-dirty
> > scripting language, it doesn't cut it. Furthermore, since we
> > don't really
> > need a lot of support for rapid script development, we will not be
> > expending any significant effort in the near future to
> > enhance JGimp in
> > this fashion -- our work rests in developing user interfaces,
> > not filters
> > That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding
> > to the GIMP.
> > There are only a handful of functions that need to be wrapped
> > initially,
> > and more sophisticated functionality can be added later. The PyGimp
> > interface in particular seems well done. It includes nice
> > classes wrapping
> > core GIMP functions, and will automatically generate user
> > interfaces for
> > scripts. Given your existing work with Perl and the ubiquity
> > of Perl and
> > Perl programmers, this too seems a better choice than JGimp.
> >
> > That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding
> > to the GIMP,
> > as you may be discovering with your work with Perl. I also read up on
> > PyGimp this weekend and was impressed by its design. It includes nice
> > classes wrapping core GIMP functions, and automatically generates user
> > interfaces for scripts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > 			-Michael Andrew Terry (mt...@cc...)
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam Richards wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm sorry, but I am really not into spending my copious free time on
> > > auto-detecting java installations, especially since we will
> > have to do that
> > > on 3 platforms. I am also very doubtful as to the benifits
> > of having java as
> > > the primary scripting language. It really doesnt make sense to me.
> > >
> > > I dont have a problem in possibly adding it to the plugin
> > package, so that
> > > if somebody wants to compile it in, they can, but making it
> > a requirement
> > > just seems rather pointless.
> > >
> > > One of the great things you are doing with the
> > plugin-archecture is tieing
> > > it much closer to the orginal application. With the
> > eventual idea that all
> > > the tools (text, brushes) are plugins, and that all plugins
> > can have full
> > > control over the GUI. Jgimp seems to be the reverse of
> > that. I can see how
> > > it works well within the current gimp system, but it seems
> > to be forcing us
> > > to have all GUI controls for the scripting language to go
> > through the Java
> > > UI, that doesnt seem integrated to me at all.
> > >
> > > I am definately warming to the general concept that you
> > have that we should
> > > attempt (at least for the moment) of making filmgimp fairly
> > script neutral,
> > > since different studios will continue to use different
> > scripting languages.
> > > In the meantime, I think we really need to focus on other
> > things that are
> > > more critical.
> > >
> > > Having said that, I will attempt to complete the perl
> > bindings, but with
> > > that too, I dont think it should be a requirement to have
> > that fully working
> > > on all platforms at the moment, I really havent seen any
> > working plugins
> > > that I think are essential to do work. However, it is
> > important for testing.
> > >
> > > In the meantime, I am going to finish of the brushes (I
> > still have the
> > > clone, eraser and dodge/burn brushes to get working with
> > some minimal
> > > pressure sensitivity).
> > >
> > > Sam.
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Robin Rowe [mailto:ro...@Mo...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:09 PM
> > > > To: jgi...@li...
> > > > Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sam,
> > > >
> > > > > They either dont install it, or have their own version.
> > > >
> > > > Mozilla detects or installs Sun's JDK, I think.
> > > >
> > > >     http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=31
> > > >     The majority of the size increase is the inclusion of
> > Sun's Java 2
> > > > package.
> > > >
> > > > K-Meleon and Opera handles optional installation of the Sun
> > > > JDK. We can look
> > > > to those for ideas, too.
> > > >
> > > >     K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/docs/relnotes07.php):
> > > > a.. You must first install the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
> > > > to run Java
> > > > applets in K-Meleon. Once installed, K-Meleon automatically
> > > > detects your JRE
> > > > installation and no other configuration is necessary.
> > > > a.. K-Meleon has been tested with JRE 1.4. You can download
> > > > JRE 1.4 from
> > > > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/download.html. To see if JRE
> > is properly
> > > > installed, type about:plugins in the URL bar. If you see
> > Java Plug-in
> > > > listed, K-Meleon properly recognizes the JRE.
> > > >
> > > > Opera:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=459
> > > > http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/6/day02-install/
> > > >
> > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2000-December/001384.html
> > > >
> > > > Linux Java:
> > > >
> > > > http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Prog
> > > ramming/linux/
> > > http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3
> > >
> > > Hope this helps. May take a little research to iron out auto-detect
> > > installation.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jgimp-developers mailing list
> > > Jgi...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Jgimp-developers mailing list
> > > Jgi...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jgimp-developers mailing list
> > Jgi...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Jgimp-developers mailing list
> Jgi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
>

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Sam R. <sa...@im...>]

I do want to stress, I do not want to give you the impression that your
project is without merit.
It does seem cool and definately worth keeping an eye on, since I am sure
there are numerous other applications for this stuff, especially if you are
eventually able to use it to do some simple image processing without
requiring gimp.

Sam.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Andrew Terry [mailto:mt...@cc...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: 'jgi...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> 
> 
> Sam -
> 
> I agree with your assessment -- there are a number of aspects of JGimp
> that make its inclusion as the default language binding for 
> scripts and
> plug-ins problematic. From the developer's perspective, Java 
> is simply not
> a scripting language -- it is a strongly typed language which 
> makes it a
> clunky tool for writing quick scripts. From a Film Gimp deployment
> perspective, it is troublesome because: a) you cannot assume 
> everyone will
> have Java on their machine (and the current version at that), 
> and b) Java
> is not an open source software project that everyone will 
> have on their
> favorite Unix CD for a quick install (and there are no open source
> versions worthy of consideration at this point). These characteristics
> raise the barrier to having a working installation "out of 
> the box" and
> prevent users from quickly and easily getting to the point 
> where they can
> write scripts. Obviously, these are not impediments you want to have
> between your application and your user base. For these 
> reasons, I agree
> with you -- it does not make sense to have JGimp as the primary,
> default "scripting" language for Film Gimp.
> 
> I should note that this does not mean JGimp is completely 
> without purpose.
> It does exactly what we need for our research purposes -- 
> provide a way to
> use the GIMP from Java. But as a general-purpose, quick-and-dirty
> scripting language, it doesn't cut it. Furthermore, since we 
> don't really
> need a lot of support for rapid script development, we will not be
> expending any significant effort in the near future to 
> enhance JGimp in
> this fashion -- our work rests in developing user interfaces, 
> not filters
> That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding 
> to the GIMP.
> There are only a handful of functions that need to be wrapped 
> initially,
> and more sophisticated functionality can be added later. The PyGimp
> interface in particular seems well done. It includes nice 
> classes wrapping
> core GIMP functions, and will automatically generate user 
> interfaces for
> scripts. Given your existing work with Perl and the ubiquity 
> of Perl and
> Perl programmers, this too seems a better choice than JGimp.
> 
> That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding 
> to the GIMP,
> as you may be discovering with your work with Perl. I also read up on
> PyGimp this weekend and was impressed by its design. It includes nice
> classes wrapping core GIMP functions, and automatically generates user
> interfaces for scripts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 			-Michael Andrew Terry (mt...@cc...)
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam Richards wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > I'm sorry, but I am really not into spending my copious free time on
> > auto-detecting java installations, especially since we will 
> have to do that
> > on 3 platforms. I am also very doubtful as to the benifits 
> of having java as
> > the primary scripting language. It really doesnt make sense to me.
> >
> > I dont have a problem in possibly adding it to the plugin 
> package, so that
> > if somebody wants to compile it in, they can, but making it 
> a requirement
> > just seems rather pointless.
> >
> > One of the great things you are doing with the 
> plugin-archecture is tieing
> > it much closer to the orginal application. With the 
> eventual idea that all
> > the tools (text, brushes) are plugins, and that all plugins 
> can have full
> > control over the GUI. Jgimp seems to be the reverse of 
> that. I can see how
> > it works well within the current gimp system, but it seems 
> to be forcing us
> > to have all GUI controls for the scripting language to go 
> through the Java
> > UI, that doesnt seem integrated to me at all.
> >
> > I am definately warming to the general concept that you 
> have that we should
> > attempt (at least for the moment) of making filmgimp fairly 
> script neutral,
> > since different studios will continue to use different 
> scripting languages.
> > In the meantime, I think we really need to focus on other 
> things that are
> > more critical.
> >
> > Having said that, I will attempt to complete the perl 
> bindings, but with
> > that too, I dont think it should be a requirement to have 
> that fully working
> > on all platforms at the moment, I really havent seen any 
> working plugins
> > that I think are essential to do work. However, it is 
> important for testing.
> >
> > In the meantime, I am going to finish of the brushes (I 
> still have the
> > clone, eraser and dodge/burn brushes to get working with 
> some minimal
> > pressure sensitivity).
> >
> > Sam.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robin Rowe [mailto:ro...@Mo...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:09 PM
> > > To: jgi...@li...
> > > Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> > >
> > >
> > > Sam,
> > >
> > > > They either dont install it, or have their own version.
> > >
> > > Mozilla detects or installs Sun's JDK, I think.
> > >
> > >     http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=31
> > >     The majority of the size increase is the inclusion of 
> Sun's Java 2
> > > package.
> > >
> > > K-Meleon and Opera handles optional installation of the Sun
> > > JDK. We can look
> > > to those for ideas, too.
> > >
> > >     K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/docs/relnotes07.php):
> > > a.. You must first install the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
> > > to run Java
> > > applets in K-Meleon. Once installed, K-Meleon automatically
> > > detects your JRE
> > > installation and no other configuration is necessary.
> > > a.. K-Meleon has been tested with JRE 1.4. You can download
> > > JRE 1.4 from
> > > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/download.html. To see if JRE 
> is properly
> > > installed, type about:plugins in the URL bar. If you see 
> Java Plug-in
> > > listed, K-Meleon properly recognizes the JRE.
> > >
> > > Opera:
> > >
> > > http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=459
> > > http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/6/day02-install/
> > > 
> http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2000-December/001384.html
> > >
> > > Linux Java:
> > >
> > > http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Prog
> > ramming/linux/
> > http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3
> >
> > Hope this helps. May take a little research to iron out auto-detect
> > installation.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jgimp-developers mailing list
> > Jgi...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> > http://www.vasoftware.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Jgimp-developers mailing list
> > Jgi...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> >
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Jgimp-developers mailing list
> Jgi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
> 

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Michael A. T. <mt...@cc...>]

And feel free to ignore the repeated paragraph in my last posting :)

Mike

			-Michael Andrew Terry (mt...@cc...)

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Michael A. T. <mt...@cc...>]

Sam -

I agree with your assessment -- there are a number of aspects of JGimp
that make its inclusion as the default language binding for scripts and
plug-ins problematic. From the developer's perspective, Java is simply not
a scripting language -- it is a strongly typed language which makes it a
clunky tool for writing quick scripts. From a Film Gimp deployment
perspective, it is troublesome because: a) you cannot assume everyone will
have Java on their machine (and the current version at that), and b) Java
is not an open source software project that everyone will have on their
favorite Unix CD for a quick install (and there are no open source
versions worthy of consideration at this point). These characteristics
raise the barrier to having a working installation "out of the box" and
prevent users from quickly and easily getting to the point where they can
write scripts. Obviously, these are not impediments you want to have
between your application and your user base. For these reasons, I agree
with you -- it does not make sense to have JGimp as the primary,
default "scripting" language for Film Gimp.

I should note that this does not mean JGimp is completely without purpose.
It does exactly what we need for our research purposes -- provide a way to
use the GIMP from Java. But as a general-purpose, quick-and-dirty
scripting language, it doesn't cut it. Furthermore, since we don't really
need a lot of support for rapid script development, we will not be
expending any significant effort in the near future to enhance JGimp in
this fashion -- our work rests in developing user interfaces, not filters
That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding to the GIMP.
There are only a handful of functions that need to be wrapped initially,
and more sophisticated functionality can be added later. The PyGimp
interface in particular seems well done. It includes nice classes wrapping
core GIMP functions, and will automatically generate user interfaces for
scripts. Given your existing work with Perl and the ubiquity of Perl and
Perl programmers, this too seems a better choice than JGimp.

That said, it is not difficult to create a language binding to the GIMP,
as you may be discovering with your work with Perl. I also read up on
PyGimp this weekend and was impressed by its design. It includes nice
classes wrapping core GIMP functions, and automatically generates user
interfaces for scripts.

Cheers,

Mike

			-Michael Andrew Terry (mt...@cc...)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Sam Richards wrote:

> Hi,
> I'm sorry, but I am really not into spending my copious free time on
> auto-detecting java installations, especially since we will have to do that
> on 3 platforms. I am also very doubtful as to the benifits of having java as
> the primary scripting language. It really doesnt make sense to me.
>
> I dont have a problem in possibly adding it to the plugin package, so that
> if somebody wants to compile it in, they can, but making it a requirement
> just seems rather pointless.
>
> One of the great things you are doing with the plugin-archecture is tieing
> it much closer to the orginal application. With the eventual idea that all
> the tools (text, brushes) are plugins, and that all plugins can have full
> control over the GUI. Jgimp seems to be the reverse of that. I can see how
> it works well within the current gimp system, but it seems to be forcing us
> to have all GUI controls for the scripting language to go through the Java
> UI, that doesnt seem integrated to me at all.
>
> I am definately warming to the general concept that you have that we should
> attempt (at least for the moment) of making filmgimp fairly script neutral,
> since different studios will continue to use different scripting languages.
> In the meantime, I think we really need to focus on other things that are
> more critical.
>
> Having said that, I will attempt to complete the perl bindings, but with
> that too, I dont think it should be a requirement to have that fully working
> on all platforms at the moment, I really havent seen any working plugins
> that I think are essential to do work. However, it is important for testing.
>
> In the meantime, I am going to finish of the brushes (I still have the
> clone, eraser and dodge/burn brushes to get working with some minimal
> pressure sensitivity).
>
> Sam.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robin Rowe [mailto:ro...@Mo...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:09 PM
> > To: jgi...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> >
> >
> > Sam,
> >
> > > They either dont install it, or have their own version.
> >
> > Mozilla detects or installs Sun's JDK, I think.
> >
> >     http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=31
> >     The majority of the size increase is the inclusion of Sun's Java 2
> > package.
> >
> > K-Meleon and Opera handles optional installation of the Sun
> > JDK. We can look
> > to those for ideas, too.
> >
> >     K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/docs/relnotes07.php):
> > a.. You must first install the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
> > to run Java
> > applets in K-Meleon. Once installed, K-Meleon automatically
> > detects your JRE
> > installation and no other configuration is necessary.
> > a.. K-Meleon has been tested with JRE 1.4. You can download
> > JRE 1.4 from
> > http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/download.html. To see if JRE is properly
> > installed, type about:plugins in the URL bar. If you see Java Plug-in
> > listed, K-Meleon properly recognizes the JRE.
> >
> > Opera:
> >
> > http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=459
> > http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/6/day02-install/
> > http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2000-December/001384.html
> >
> > Linux Java:
> >
> > http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Prog
> ramming/linux/
> http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3
>
> Hope this helps. May take a little research to iron out auto-detect
> installation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Jgimp-developers mailing list
> Jgi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
> SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
> http://www.vasoftware.com
> _______________________________________________
> Jgimp-developers mailing list
> Jgi...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers
>

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Sam R. <sa...@im...>]

Hi,
I'm sorry, but I am really not into spending my copious free time on
auto-detecting java installations, especially since we will have to do that
on 3 platforms. I am also very doubtful as to the benifits of having java as
the primary scripting language. It really doesnt make sense to me.

I dont have a problem in possibly adding it to the plugin package, so that
if somebody wants to compile it in, they can, but making it a requirement
just seems rather pointless.

One of the great things you are doing with the plugin-archecture is tieing
it much closer to the orginal application. With the eventual idea that all
the tools (text, brushes) are plugins, and that all plugins can have full
control over the GUI. Jgimp seems to be the reverse of that. I can see how
it works well within the current gimp system, but it seems to be forcing us
to have all GUI controls for the scripting language to go through the Java
UI, that doesnt seem integrated to me at all.

I am definately warming to the general concept that you have that we should
attempt (at least for the moment) of making filmgimp fairly script neutral,
since different studios will continue to use different scripting languages.
In the meantime, I think we really need to focus on other things that are
more critical.

Having said that, I will attempt to complete the perl bindings, but with
that too, I dont think it should be a requirement to have that fully working
on all platforms at the moment, I really havent seen any working plugins
that I think are essential to do work. However, it is important for testing.

In the meantime, I am going to finish of the brushes (I still have the
clone, eraser and dodge/burn brushes to get working with some minimal
pressure sensitivity).

Sam.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Rowe [mailto:ro...@Mo...]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:09 PM
> To: jgi...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration
> 
> 
> Sam,
> 
> > They either dont install it, or have their own version.
> 
> Mozilla detects or installs Sun's JDK, I think.
> 
>     http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=31
>     The majority of the size increase is the inclusion of Sun's Java 2
> package.
> 
> K-Meleon and Opera handles optional installation of the Sun 
> JDK. We can look
> to those for ideas, too.
> 
>     K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/docs/relnotes07.php):
> a.. You must first install the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) 
> to run Java
> applets in K-Meleon. Once installed, K-Meleon automatically 
> detects your JRE
> installation and no other configuration is necessary.
> a.. K-Meleon has been tested with JRE 1.4. You can download 
> JRE 1.4 from
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/download.html. To see if JRE is properly
> installed, type about:plugins in the URL bar. If you see Java Plug-in
> listed, K-Meleon properly recognizes the JRE.
> 
> Opera:
> 
> http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=459
> http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/6/day02-install/
> http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2000-December/001384.html
> 
> Linux Java:
> 
> http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Prog
ramming/linux/
http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3

Hope this helps. May take a little research to iron out auto-detect
installation.

Cheers,

Robin



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jgimp-developers mailing list
Jgi...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers

Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Robin R. <ro...@Mo...>]

Sam,

> They either dont install it, or have their own version.

Mozilla detects or installs Sun's JDK, I think.

    http://www.mozillanews.org/index.php3?article=31
    The majority of the size increase is the inclusion of Sun's Java 2
package.

K-Meleon and Opera handles optional installation of the Sun JDK. We can look
to those for ideas, too.

    K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/docs/relnotes07.php):
a.. You must first install the Java Runtime Environment (JRE) to run Java
applets in K-Meleon. Once installed, K-Meleon automatically detects your JRE
installation and no other configuration is necessary.
a.. K-Meleon has been tested with JRE 1.4. You can download JRE 1.4 from
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/download.html. To see if JRE is properly
installed, type about:plugins in the URL bar. If you see Java Plug-in
listed, K-Meleon properly recognizes the JRE.

Opera:

http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=459
http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/6/day02-install/
http://list.opera.com/pipermail/opera-users/2000-December/001384.html

Linux Java:

http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Programming/linux/
http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3

Hope this helps. May take a little research to iron out auto-detect
installation.

Cheers,

Robin

RE: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Sam R. <sa...@im...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Rowe [mailto:ro...@Mo...]
> Mozilla has the same issues. We should look at what they have done.
They either dont install it, or have their own version.

Having its own version will make things very bloated.

Sam.

Re: [Jgimp-developers] FilmGimp integration

[Robin R. <ro...@Mo...>]

Sam,

> What I definately do not want is for the filmgimp install to fail due to
> java not been available. It should at least give a warning and continue.

Yes, there's no question about that.

> What worries me is that there are quite a few places for java to be
> installed....

Mozilla has the same issues. We should look at what they have done.

> ....at least on SGI's its stability and performance is terrible.

That's news to me. I haven't touched an SGI in quite a while. I will ask a
friend who leads the dis-java-vrml project about that.

Cheers,

Robin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.LinuxMovies.org www.FilmGimp.org
www.OpenSourceProgrammers.org  http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net
www.MovieEditor.com

Re: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration

[Michael T. <mt...@cc...>]

Sam -

> I personally prefer the external install since it simplifys the packaging.
> What I definately do not want is for the filmgimp install to fail due to
> java not been available. It should at least give a warning and continue.
> 
> What worries me is that there are quite a few places for java to be
> installed (if its installed at all), and at least on SGI's its stability and
> performance is terrible. I'm even less clear on how this affects packaging,
> do we add hard requirements for the rpm packages (and others) that java be
> installed? Do we require a particular version to be installed in a
> particular place?

Good points -- I hadn't considered binary distribution issues at all. I 
don't have a good answer on how that should be taken care of nor 
resolved, but you are right -- for JGimp to work, it needs to have 
access to the Java runtime library. Specifying this kind of information 
is easy at compile-time, but I'm not sure how it can be done for 
distributed binaries. Also, Sun's JDK is not included with distributions 
since it is not open source, but we can't use open source Java 
implementations...

> So while I dont necessarily mind it being part of the package, I'm not sure
> about it being required, or even built into the rpm. However, if its going
> through many revisions, I would prefer to focus on making it as easy as
> possible to install into filmgimp, rather than adding it to filmgimp and
> then having to keep track of revisions.

Makes sense.

> FYI, I am trying to do some work to get the Makefile.am file to work, I
> think I still have a way to go since there are c header files that are being
> created by java (Is this for embedding c in java, do you have a link for
> this setup?).

Yes, Java will create some C header files for embedding Java within the 
C plug-in. What information are you looking for?

Mike

Michael Terry
Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center
College of Computing, Georgia Tech
mt...@cc...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Terry [mailto:mt...@cc...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:25 AM
> To: jgi...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration
> 
> 
> Hi all -
> 
> 
>>>As per an external install -- I think it probably does make the most
>>>sense to have it as an external install. Save that, you would want to
>>>have a configure switch to enable/disable the capability when compiling
>>>Film Gimp. 
>>
>>We shouldn't do that, unless there is something flawed with JGimp that we
>>should be told about. Making Java optional would mean confusion for users
>>and make Java plug-ins of diminished value.
> 
> 
> Yup, I see your point. OK, but one thing we will definitely want to have 
> is the ability for the configure script to fail gracefully if no JDK is 
> installed in the system -- you don't want Java to be a requirement to 
> use Film Gimp. So a configure script that keeps running and compiles 
> without JGimp, and that also includes switches to enable/disable it 
> would be necessary, I think. I could make these changes, but it would 
> take awhile because I am not familiar with how configure scripts are 
> constructed.
> 
> 
>>Well, everything we do seems in flux. We might not include anything if
> 
> that
> 
>>was a disqualification! The question is, will JGimp destabilize Film Gimp?
>>If the answer is no and it is functional enough to justify being included,
>>we should go ahead and bring it in as a standard part of our release. It
>>helps that decision that JGimp is under 200k.
> 
> 
> It's difficult for me to tell whether JGimp destabilizes Film Gimp at 
> this point. I know it doesn't cleanly exit at times, but it's unclear 
> why that happens. I'll take a look at it sometime when I have time.
> 
> 
>>Not as such, but the blur plug-in is simple enough. Can you use that as
> 
> your
> 
>>guide?
> 
> 
> Yup, that's how I rolled the JGimp Makefile :) Thanks.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Michael Terry
> Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center
> College of Computing, Georgia Tech
> mt...@cc...
> 

RE: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration

[Sam R. <sa...@im...>]

Hi,

I personally prefer the external install since it simplifys the packaging.
What I definately do not want is for the filmgimp install to fail due to
java not been available. It should at least give a warning and continue.

What worries me is that there are quite a few places for java to be
installed (if its installed at all), and at least on SGI's its stability and
performance is terrible. I'm even less clear on how this affects packaging,
do we add hard requirements for the rpm packages (and others) that java be
installed? Do we require a particular version to be installed in a
particular place?

I do also have similar reservations about Perl too, since the latest perl
thats installed on redhat will not work with gimp (due to it being compiled
with threading).

So while I dont necessarily mind it being part of the package, I'm not sure
about it being required, or even built into the rpm. However, if its going
through many revisions, I would prefer to focus on making it as easy as
possible to install into filmgimp, rather than adding it to filmgimp and
then having to keep track of revisions.

FYI, I am trying to do some work to get the Makefile.am file to work, I
think I still have a way to go since there are c header files that are being
created by java (Is this for embedding c in java, do you have a link for
this setup?).

Thanks...

Sam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Terry [mailto:mt...@cc...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:25 AM
To: jgi...@li...
Subject: Re: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration


Hi all -

>>As per an external install -- I think it probably does make the most
>>sense to have it as an external install. Save that, you would want to
>>have a configure switch to enable/disable the capability when compiling
>>Film Gimp. 
> 
> We shouldn't do that, unless there is something flawed with JGimp that we
> should be told about. Making Java optional would mean confusion for users
> and make Java plug-ins of diminished value.

Yup, I see your point. OK, but one thing we will definitely want to have 
is the ability for the configure script to fail gracefully if no JDK is 
installed in the system -- you don't want Java to be a requirement to 
use Film Gimp. So a configure script that keeps running and compiles 
without JGimp, and that also includes switches to enable/disable it 
would be necessary, I think. I could make these changes, but it would 
take awhile because I am not familiar with how configure scripts are 
constructed.

> Well, everything we do seems in flux. We might not include anything if
that
> was a disqualification! The question is, will JGimp destabilize Film Gimp?
> If the answer is no and it is functional enough to justify being included,
> we should go ahead and bring it in as a standard part of our release. It
> helps that decision that JGimp is under 200k.

It's difficult for me to tell whether JGimp destabilizes Film Gimp at 
this point. I know it doesn't cleanly exit at times, but it's unclear 
why that happens. I'll take a look at it sometime when I have time.

> Not as such, but the blur plug-in is simple enough. Can you use that as
your
> guide?

Yup, that's how I rolled the JGimp Makefile :) Thanks.

Mike

Michael Terry
Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center
College of Computing, Georgia Tech
mt...@cc...




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Jgimp-developers mailing list
Jgi...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jgimp-developers

Re: [Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration

[Michael T. <mt...@cc...>]

Hi all -

>>As per an external install -- I think it probably does make the most
>>sense to have it as an external install. Save that, you would want to
>>have a configure switch to enable/disable the capability when compiling
>>Film Gimp. 
> 
> We shouldn't do that, unless there is something flawed with JGimp that we
> should be told about. Making Java optional would mean confusion for users
> and make Java plug-ins of diminished value.

Yup, I see your point. OK, but one thing we will definitely want to have 
is the ability for the configure script to fail gracefully if no JDK is 
installed in the system -- you don't want Java to be a requirement to 
use Film Gimp. So a configure script that keeps running and compiles 
without JGimp, and that also includes switches to enable/disable it 
would be necessary, I think. I could make these changes, but it would 
take awhile because I am not familiar with how configure scripts are 
constructed.

> Well, everything we do seems in flux. We might not include anything if that
> was a disqualification! The question is, will JGimp destabilize Film Gimp?
> If the answer is no and it is functional enough to justify being included,
> we should go ahead and bring it in as a standard part of our release. It
> helps that decision that JGimp is under 200k.

It's difficult for me to tell whether JGimp destabilizes Film Gimp at 
this point. I know it doesn't cleanly exit at times, but it's unclear 
why that happens. I'll take a look at it sometime when I have time.

> Not as such, but the blur plug-in is simple enough. Can you use that as your
> guide?

Yup, that's how I rolled the JGimp Makefile :) Thanks.

Mike

Michael Terry
Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center
College of Computing, Georgia Tech
mt...@cc...

[Jgimp-developers] Re: FilmGimp integration

[Robin R. <ro...@Mo...>]

Mike,

Hi. Bringing our JGimp discussion over from the Film Gimp list so we'd have
some traffic here seems like a good idea. By the way, Sam and I discussed
JGimp on the phone this morning before your post came through.

Sam, are you here too?

> As per an external install -- I think it probably does make the most
> sense to have it as an external install. Save that, you would want to
> have a configure switch to enable/disable the capability when compiling
> Film Gimp.

We shouldn't do that, unless there is something flawed with JGimp that we
should be told about. Making Java optional would mean confusion for users
and make Java plug-ins of diminished value.

Java is one of the most popular languages today, and appeals to programmers
who are turned off by the quirkiness of Scheme and the trickiness of C --
our plug-in languages now. Can we attract a broader segment of programmers
to Film Gimp? Typical Java programmers are corporate developers, not
heavy-duty systems programmers. We better make it easy to use, with as few
extra hurdles as possible.

Java can benefit Film Gimp in a similar way to our Mac port -- drawing new
blood and broader appeal.

> But I think the idea of having it as an external install
> makes the most sense right now, since it is still in a lot of flux.

Well, everything we do seems in flux. We might not include anything if that
was a disqualification! The question is, will JGimp destabilize Film Gimp?
If the answer is no and it is functional enough to justify being included,
we should go ahead and bring it in as a standard part of our release. It
helps that decision that JGimp is under 200k.

> If I
> had an example of an externally built plug-in, it would be a no-brainer
> to set up the build process (is there a bare-bones external plug-in
> available that I could use, something like a plug-in template?).

Not as such, but the blur plug-in is simple enough. Can you use that as your
guide?

Cheers,

Robin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.LinuxMovies.org www.FilmGimp.org
www.OpenSourceProgrammers.org  http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net
www.MovieEditor.com