Re: Re[4]: [PEAR-DEV] previos message

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Martin Jansen wrote: > According to this rule I don't know anymore if Image_Common > is an appropriate name for it. Perhaps Image_GDConvert would > be better since converting images (that's the purpose of your > class, isn't it?) isn't what I would call common image operations. I think the idea of the class is to provide common oo interface to some image related functions (opening, saving, converting between formats). By calling the class Image_GDConvert you would limit it to be only wrapper for GD which I dont find too usefull (only usefull part would be getting rid of different ImageCreateFromXXX() and imageXXX() functions. If we would call the class Image_Convert it would leave room to use other additional graphics libraries such as imLib. This would make the class much more usefull since you would have common api between these. I dont think Image_Common is appropriate name either since "common" should be a base class which to me means much more that opening, saving and converting between formats. Then again if the class will later include other functions such as scaling, getimagesize etc etc. Image_Commong might be a good name after all. -- Mika Tuupola http://www.appelsiini.net/~tuupola/