Re: Re: ext/imagick BC break (was: Re: [PEAR-DEV] PHP Magick version 0.5a Released!)

On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:55:44 -0500 (EST) Michael Montero <mmontero@mail.communityconnect.com> wrote: > So, in other words I would call: > > imagick_filter( $handle, "blur", [param1], [param2], [param3] ) > > ? Is that right? If so, I'm not sure I find much of an advantage to > this versus providing separately named functions. In fact, I find it > a bit easier from a user's point of view to have separate, well > documented functions. > What do you think the advantages of this are? Easier to add new filters, transformations. No need to remember hundred of functions. > Plus, I find that the method I've employed maps nearly 1-to-1 with > ImageMagick itself. As far as I remember, imagick just does it like that, it uses the main api functions. The user side is convert or others command line tools. Each command line matches specific functionnalities (it uses arguments as you may use it in php). This is just an advice, I just do not like to look at 100 functions ;-). hth pierre