Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Combine forces with ggez/aseprite crate #18

Open
tversteeg opened this issue Apr 29, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Combine forces with ggez/aseprite crate #18

tversteeg opened this issue Apr 29, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@tversteeg
Copy link

Since yesterday I've become a maintainer for the ggez/aseprite crate.

Since the aseprite crate is purely focused on parsing exported JSON, and this crate is focussed on parsing .aseprite files, I think it would be nice to somehow combine them or at least collaborate.

From a user's perspective, I think a workflow where you can work with the .aseprite files directly, ideally with hot reloading, and during a release build the JSON with a sprite sheet can be exported and bundled. I'm not sure how exactly this would look.

What are your thoughts on this?

@feelingsonice
Copy link
Contributor

feelingsonice commented Jan 18, 2024

@tversteeg any idea what are the differences between the two? Besides the format for which it's parsed?

@tversteeg
Copy link
Author

Aseprite only loads the exported JSON, and this crate loads the .aseprite binary files.

@alpine-alpaca
Copy link
Owner

The goal of this crate is only to be able to parse .asesprite files. The utils is kind of an exception to this and should probably be moved into another crate eventually. Things that integrate this into a more full-featured asset pipeline / workflow should live in other crates.

I'm currently not using this crate myself, and my gamedev time is very limited these days. Therefore, I currently don't have any meaningful thoughts on this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants