Feature #12529
Use RMagick gem to create thumbnails when available
Status: | Closed | Start date: | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
Assignee: | - | % Done: | 0% | |
Category: | Code cleanup/refactoring | |||
Target version: | - | |||
Resolution: | Wont fix |
Description
Attached patch uses RMagick library calls to create image attachment thumbnails when rmagick gem is available, otherwise degrades to shell call to 'convert' utility.
History
#1
Updated by Etienne Massip about 10 years ago
- Category changed from Attachments to Code cleanup/refactoring
- Target version set to Candidate for next major release
#2
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 10 years ago
I don't know if we should rely on RMagick more than we currently do. The latest release of this gem is almost 3 year old and it looks like we have some issues with using RMagick: #12480, #12732. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure that using RMagick to generate thumbnails is more efficient.
#3
Updated by Alex Shulgin about 10 years ago
Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:
I don't know if we should rely on RMagick more than we currently do. The latest release of this gem is almost 3 year old and it looks like we have some issues with using RMagick: #12480, #12732. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure that using RMagick to generate thumbnails is more efficient.
I'm all for removing dependency on ImageMagick library (ever tried ImageScience: http://docs.seattlerb.org/ImageScience.html ?) It just strikes me as extra inefficient to run `convert` via shell for what you could just bind the lib, which I believe RMagick does.
--
Alex
#4
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 10 years ago
Alex Shulgin wrote:
I'm all for removing dependency on ImageMagick library
I was speaking about the RMagick gem, not the ImageMagick library
It just strikes me as extra inefficient to run `convert` via shell for what you could just bind the lib, which I believe RMagick does.
This is slower indeed but memory consumption is much lower too.
#5
Updated by Alex Shulgin about 10 years ago
Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:
This is slower indeed but memory consumption is much lower too.
Hm, I don't see how sane implementation of library binding would be consuming noticeable amounts of memory, which suggests RMagick implementation isn't sane.
#6
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 10 years ago
#7
Updated by Alex Shulgin about 10 years ago
OK, I see your point. I think this item can be closed.
Thanks.
--
Alex
#8
Updated by Daniel Felix about 10 years ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
- Target version deleted (
Candidate for next major release) - Resolution set to Wont fix
Hi Alex,
thanks anyway for your suggestion. I'm closing this ticket now.