[wxPython-dev] img2py script

[Anthony Tuininga]

On Nov 26, 2007 12:28 PM, Robin Dunn <robin at alldunn.com> wrote:
> Anthony Tuininga wrote:
>
> >
> > I'll make these changes and then submit them as a patch. I'll create a
> > second patch for wx.lib and a third patch for the demo, ignoring
> > images.py and throbImages.py as discussed above. Once the first patch
> > is accepted then I can finish off the other two -- unless you want
> > them all at once? The reason I am thinking of separating them and then
> > waiting is that any changes you decide to make to the first patch may
> > affect the other two. I'll do one or two changes just to make sure the
> > first patch is indeed working, of course. :-)
>
> I don't currently anticipate any additional changes, so I would prefer
> to have them all at once.

Ok. I've uploaded the patches for wx.lib. The demo I'll wait until
tomorrow or until I know for sure that there are no additional
changes. :-)

Take a look at

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1839187&group_id=10718&atid=310718

I'll upload an archive with the demo changes after we're sure that we
have what we want. Note that I could only test a few of the changes in
any reasonable fashion (I found them in the demo or a test was
included in the module itself). For the others I simply confirmed that
they could be imported and visually verified the code. If there is
some good way of performing these tests I'd be happy to do them. Some
of this code I've never seen, let alone used! :-)

> BTW, since this will require some changes in existing user code if they
> regenerate their python image files then I'm thinking that this should
> not go into 2.8.  Any thoughts from the group on that?

True enough. The changes are relatively minor when not using a catalog
and not required when using a catalog but the possibility definitely
exists. I'd prefer 2.8 myself but I'm not in dire straits since I have
the new code and keeping it independent for a while longer is no great
hardship.

> If we do want to get this into 2.8 then I think that we need to make
> img2py still be able to generate functions like before instead of using
> the new class, so the same API will be available in the generated file.
>   We can add an option that turns on the generation of code using the
> class instead of functions, and then in 2.9 make that be the default.
> The data can still be encoded with base64 in the new version using
> either functions or the class instance since I don't think anybody will
> care about that as long as they are able to get the bitmaps without
> changing anything in their code.

I've uploaded a img2py.py module. In it I've ignored the value of the
compressed flag. I've also generated the "get%sBitmap" and friends
methods in the form

Test = PyEmbeddedImage()
getTestBitmap = Test.GetBitmap

I've left this inside "if 1:" in case you care to define an option for
generating or not generating this code. I wasn't sure what you
intended. I'll take further direction or you can take it over from
here, provided you're happy with the remainder of the code, of course.

> --
>
> Robin Dunn
> Software Craftsman
> http://wxPython.org  Java give you jitters?  Relax with wxPython!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wxPython-dev-unsubscribe at lists.wxwidgets.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wxPython-dev-help at lists.wxwidgets.org
>
>