Hi Farrukh Pleasure :).
I am not sure about the API we should be using, and want to investigate what other image frameworks do first. Regards Damjan On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Farrukh Najmi <farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi Damjan, > > Confirming that your recent fix for supporting Exif FieldName looks good > great. Thank you! > > When do you think you may be able to commit the changes to support the > following metadata format-specific methods so I can provide feedback: > > Imaging.getExifMetadata() > Imaging.getIptcMetadata() > Imaging.getXmpMetadata() > > > > > On 07/04/2012 12:38 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> >> I just committed new TIFF tag names to SVN, let me know how they work for >> you. >> >> The best time to add the new metadata methods is before the 1.0 >> release, since changing binary compatibility later will be harder. >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Farrukh Najmi >> <farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote: >>> >>> +1 on having the methods: >>> >>> Imaging.getExifMetadata() >>> Imaging.getIptcMetadata() >>> Imaging.getXmpMetadata() >>> >>> It is is a good idea so one can access metadata-format-specific metadata >>> in >>> a metadata-format-specific way and handling all special needs of specific >>> metadata formats. These methods should work on any image resource and >>> throw >>> something like MissingFeatureException for when a metadata format is not >>> yet >>> supported for an image format or throw something like an >>> InvalidRequestException when a metadata format is invalid for a image >>> format. >>> >>> That said, there may still be some value to having a metadata-format >>> netrual >>> getMetadata() interface along the lines of the patch I submitted. For >>> now, >>> we could simply log an issue and defer it and insteda focus on your >>> suggestion above. That would meet my needs just fine. >>> >>> Question is do we do these changes after a formal 1.0 release or before? >>> May >>> be it is better to get stable code under current API out as 1.0 and then >>> work on a 2.0-SNAPSHOT (as opposed to 1.1 since the API changes are not >>> backward compatible and are in fact major). Or is it better to do these >>> changes for the 1.0 release so consumers of the project do not get >>> exposed >>> to a big API change? >>> >>> If we can do the proposed change without a long delay then I suggest we >>> do >>> it for 1.0. If it means a long delay then I suggest we defer to 2.0. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/03/2012 03:58 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>>> >>>> I've also considered the metadata interfaces we use, and I am not sure >>>> the current approaches are any good. >>>> >>>> Most metadata formats are designed in a way specific to that format, >>>> eg. some have arbitrary levels of nesting, others have a flat >>>> structure, etc. But most are designed to be stored in any image >>>> format. >>>> >>>> So instead of a Imaging.getMetadata() method that tries to unify all >>>> metadata into one common interface - and does so badly, because eg. >>>> EXIF can have nested subdirectories and this information is lost - >>>> maybe we should have: >>>> Imaging.getExifMetadata() >>>> Imaging.getIptcMetadata() >>>> Imaging.getXmpMetadata() >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Damjan >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Farrukh Najmi >>>> <farr...@wellfleetsoftware.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Updated proposed patch with following new changes: >>>>> >>>>> Add getValue() method to nested class IImageMetadataItem. These return >>>>> the >>>>> value of the item as an Object allowing for values of various types to >>>>> be >>>>> returned. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/03/2012 11:01 AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Moving this thread to dev list as it seems to be more appropriate >>>>> there.... >>>>> >>>>> Attached is a patch to the IImageMetadata.java that reflects my revised >>>>> proposal thinking this through in conjunction with the proposed >>>>> solution >>>>> in >>>>> another thread... >>>>> >>>>> Add a getMetadataSpecification() method to IImageMetadata so we can >>>>> manage >>>>> the metadata specification that defines the metadata >>>>> Add getMetadata() to nested class IImageMetadataItem to get back at the >>>>> parent IImageMetadata instance so we can access the metadata >>>>> specification >>>>> information managed from an IImageMetadata instance >>>>> Add getId(), getName(), getDescription() methods to nested class >>>>> IImageMetadataItem. These are the key triplet of info about the >>>>> metadata >>>>> item that is needed in my experience >>>>> >>>>> Of course implementations of these two interfaces would need to also be >>>>> updated to support the new methods according to proposed semantics. I >>>>> would >>>>> be happy to contribute in any way that I can and as requested. >>>>> >>>>> Dev team colleagues, please weigh in on the proposal. Thanks for your >>>>> awesome work to create this project and for considering this proposal. >>>>> >>>>> >>> > > -- > Regards, > Farrukh > > Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
