[PEPr] Comment on Images::Image_Driver

Philippe Jausions (http://pear.php.net/user/jausions) has commented on the proposal for Images::Image_Driver. Comment: Ok, I see what you mean... In this case the "Image_Driver" name doesn't seem to reflect that... Maybe "Image_Builder"... Also, the statement "independent from GD" is a bit misleading. You do seem to require the GD extension to generate binary-based images. That statement made me think that you would generate any images with PHP interpreted code only... I just want to make sure packages don't step on each other's toes, that would be a waste of resource... With all the Image_* packages going around, it would be best to put everybody's effort to reach a common goal. For instance a similar new package Image_Polygon was recently proposed... and another Image_XBM was just approved... Yes, it would be good to define an image or piece of image with this package and passing it to another Image_* package for plotting or whatever... If I ever get my CVS karma fixed so I can do some real work on Image_Transform, this is something I could look into... So basically, I like the idea of this package, just the name and description would need retouch for me. Doordination with other (future and existing) Image_* packages is also very very essentials. We can't have PEAR have multiple Image_* package that can't talk to each other anymore. -Philippe Proposal information: http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=212 -- Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net