Redmine

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.

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

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.

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.

• http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13406343/rmagick-correct-way-to-create-a-thumbnail-without-leaking-memory
• https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/heroku/toIn3wzQX7c
• http://thr3ads.net/mongrel-users/2006/12/2110-RMagick-bad-good
• https://github.com/minimagick/minimagick#why

OK, I see your point. I think this item can be closed.

Thanks.
--
Alex