Hi Tom, On 3/24/10 2:38 PM, "Tom Brinkman" <reportbase2007@gmail.com> wrote:
All valid points.
I like Gil as well.
Unfortunately, it hasnt been updatted or enhanced in a long time. (correctly if I'm wrong) Not saying that it needs to be. Its pretty solid.
This unfortunately kinda relates to alot of the other points made here this morning Who owns GIL now? Does boost? Can we change it without talking to the adobe developers. Do we need to consult with them?
Unfortunately I have been spending very little of my time over the past couple of years with GIL while I am doing my Ph.D. but I plan to increase my involvement as I finish my Ph.D. I am hoping that (if we did our job right) no major future changes to GIL core will be necessary. It would be best if we (Hailin, Christian and I) maintain ownership of GIL core and future changes happen through us, unless they are minor compile fixes. That said, there is a lot more to be done with GIL, but I see future work as adding/replacing GIL extensions. Christian is working on an overhaul of gil::io. What we need is extensions to do image processing algorithms, such as high-quality fast resampling and convolution, morphological operations, extending GIL to video, adding support for intrinsics, adding vector graphics and type support, GIL-ifying VIGRA, adding good OpenCV wrapper, etc. I have heard some people express interest in doing some of these items, and there are some extensions available already, but nothing is proposed to Boost. We can't expect the original authors to do all future extensions. Isn't one of the strengths of open source that people jump in and contribute? I am a bit disappointed that this is not happening, or is happening very slowly. Tom, you have done some great GIL extensions that deal with vector graphics and type; have you thought about proposing them for inclusion into Boost? What prevents you and others from contributing? Lubomir