In the bustle of the holidays, I think that the first public release of GEGL got lost. Well, please go and check out the first release, GEGL 0.04.
Pippin is rocking out on getting this next-generation core of GIMP done. It should be noted that it is more than just the GIMP’s future core, but also can be used for all different needs with the hope of growing the culture of gegl into other apps on multiple different platforms.
Bryce and I have discussed this “core” strategy for Inkscape as well as a great way to interoperate with other apps and as a great way to not focus on making a huge monolithic Inkscape. For Inkscape, we could have Inkcore which is the main guts of Inkscape, the canvas, etc, which other apps could then link to and we could get any number of other applications like Inkmotion (animation), Inkview (viewer), Inkpresent (presentation app), Inkpaint (for kids) and keep Inkscape as-is, as the primarily drawing.
Inkdia! Inkdia!
I’ve always liked the “Ink Core” idea, though last I remember hearing about it, it was Bryce talking at Recent Changes Camp, February 2006. (That is: “A freakin’ long time ago.”)
Splitting an entire project into two parts, though, with no promise of use of the first part; It feels kind of risky.
But I see a huge space of “visual applications” that don’t exist, because it takes so long to get a “base.”
I’ve often wished (but only wished,) for an application like EMACS, but on an infinite canvas, like we have with Inkscape, and capable of integrating graphics. Most of the controls would be based around text and view and positioning, rather than the InkScape focus on images, drawing, and so on.
The technical infrastructure would end up looking identical to Inkscape, but the keyboard bindings and user interface code would look extremely different.
Perhaps the thing to do is to do the Inkscape core thing, after you have a few applications riding on top of Inkscape?
In Open Source time, that is not that long
Well, I don’t think it would be splitting the project into two parts, as much as making a more logical division that we could have packages for.
More than likely, this inkcore and inkscape ideas would be simultaneous with intent to get others to start their own ink____ or “whatever they want to name it” using inkcore.
Inkscape has been moving this way since we started the project, so this is really just the fruition of our refactoring efforts.
Right, the idea is to spin many apps out of this effort. Hopefully this will happen with the gimp. I mean in the end, how big can these apps really get?
I like the idea of lib’ification. And, I like the idea of inkdia, which would have to be renamed inkcharts or something so we don’t get hated on
Oh, at the same time, it should be noted that Inkscape has always maintained that doing everything is not the best strategy. Thus, hopefully what we can provide would allow dia and other apps to use inkcore if they so like…as building communities really takes time.
“Ink Motion” I like that
If Inkcore existed tomorrow we do already have Inkscape and Inkview. There might be other applications like Synfig, Dia, interested in using it. there might even be someone interested in creating a raster graphics app since nowadays many raster apps have a vector engine underneath (Fireworks, Xara, Expression).
> I like the idea of lib’ification. And, I like the idea of inkdia, which would have to be renamed
If you had the enthusiasm an d resources to create inkdia you would probably be able to make big improvements to Dia just as easily.
if Inkcore existed I expect Dia would be close to first in line to use it or failing that some kind of Cairo canvas.
Yeah, we should put the pedal to the medal on this idea and wikify it on the Inkscape wiki. Would you like to help me with this?