Re: Use GhostScript API instead of forking (issue 548030043 by address@hidden)

[dak]

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/