Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D90A510E1F for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 67362 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2013 13:20:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 67183 invoked by uid 500); 29 Nov 2013 13:20:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 67170 invoked by uid 99); 29 Nov 2013 13:20:24 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:20:24 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at spf.trusted-forwarder.org) Received: from [87.98.178.36] (HELO mo3.mail-out.ovh.net) (87.98.178.36) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:20:15 +0000 Received: from mail177.ha.ovh.net (b6.ovh.net [213.186.33.56]) by mo3.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EDFAFF9FA9 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:19:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2013 15:19:54 +0200 Received: from mar75-7-82-247-19-29.fbx.proxad.net (HELO ?192.168.0.10?) (ebourg@ariane-software.com@82.247.19.29) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2013 15:19:48 +0200 Message-ID: <52989473.8000603@apache.org> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:19:47 +0100 From: Emmanuel Bourg User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons Developers List Subject: [imaging] Parser and writer parameters X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10697175015413800002 X-Ovh-Remote: 82.247.19.29 (mar75-7-82-247-19-29.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeiledrkeduucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeiledrkeduucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi all, Imaging uses a Map to pass parameters to the writers and parsers. This isn't very convenient, because it's not immediately obvious what parameters are available and what values are expected. In constrast, javax.imageio has a hierarchy of parameter classes (IIOParam, ImageReadParam, ImageWriteParam, JPEGImageReadParam, etc) and I think it's a good idea. The Map could be replaced by an ImagingParams class, and each format would subclass it as needed. I don't know if it's worth splitting the class to separate the read and write parameters. What do you think? Emmanuel Bourg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org