[IPOL discuss] [IPOL tech] two questions about demos

Miguel Colom colom at cmla.ens-cachan.fr
Thu Nov 27 22:07:47 CET 2014


Quoting rafael grompone von gioi <grompone at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I have two technical questions about demos. I'm not
> sure if this is the right mailing list to ask. If not, could
> you please tell me which is the right one?

Hi Rafa,
I think the discuss list is more appropriate for these kind of  
questions, since most of the people who write demos receives the  
mailing list and can therefore give useful hints.
I'll forward this email there.

> The questions are the following:
>
> 1) When using 2 or more input images, is there a way
> of indicating to the input handling routines that all the
> images should be the same size, so that is handled
> automatically? Or I must check this in my app and
> generate an error page in case is not?

The demo system has support only to retrieve the number of input  
images the demo needs to use.
But it doesn't check the sizes of the images, since it doesn't know if  
it's necessarily an error the fact that the images have different sizes.

For example, an algorithm to find matching points between a pair of  
images could admit images of different sizes.

Thus, it's the actual demo that should check if the sizes are different.
For example:
         if (image(self.work_dir + 'input_0.png').size !=
             image(self.work_dir + 'input_1.png').size):
             return self.error('badparams',
                               "The images must have the same size")

> 2) I was wondering why my demo was not using the
> full browser width. I then discovered that the reason
> is that the CSS in http://www.ipol.im/local.css includes:
>
> #content{max-width:64em;}
>
> imposing a fixed maximal width to the contents of the
> web pages. Is there any reason to impose this limit to all pages?
> If it is necessary for the ipol front page and articles' web pages,
> it may be a good idea to separate in two groups: text pages
> and demo pages. By the way, I noticed this option is overwritten
> in the archive pages.

I didn't design the CSS, so I'm not sure if there's a reason for that.
Please discuss it with Nicolas Limare.

Best,
Miguel




More information about the discuss mailing list