[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@h
From: |
dak |
Subject: |
Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden) |
Date: |
Sun, 03 May 2020 03:44:23 -0700 |
On 2020/05/02 10:22:15, hahnjo wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc
> File lily/general-scheme.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/diff/559960055/lily/general-scheme.cc#newcode778
> lily/general-scheme.cc:778: free (a);
> On 2020/05/02 10:15:40, hanwenn wrote:
> > the code mixes setting up the GS instance (memory management etc)
with
> handling
> > the file. Does it have to be this way? Can we have a
> >
> > class Ghostscript {
> > process(string file, string device);
> > close();
> > };
> >
> > Ghostscript *get_gs(vector<string> args);
> >
> > instead?
> >
> > I think it should be possible to construct the API such that we
always have
> > ly:gs , and that it falls back to shelling out to GS if the API is
not
> > available.
>
> No, because there are two types of arguments when using the API: args
and
> device_args where the latter is added to command below. This uses a
different
> syntax and some properties are called differently (HWResolution vs -r
for
> example).
It may well be that calling them "HWResolution" instead of -r would work
fine and -r is just provided as a courtesy abbreviation. I don't know
whether this holds true, just bringing this up in case it might make for
a different view of the situation.
https://codereview.appspot.com/548030043/
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), (continued)
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), dak, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/05/02
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), dak, 2020/05/03
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden),
dak <=
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/03
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), dak, 2020/05/03
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), jonas . hahnfeld, 2020/05/06
- Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden), hanwenn, 2020/05/09