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

On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:30:50 +0300 (EET DST), Mika Tuupola wrote: >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. I have no problem with Image_Convert instead of Image_GDConvert (much more easy to write btw). - Martin