[Insight-developers] itkResampleImageFilter.h & itkWarpImageFilter.h and Software Archeology

[Tom Vercauteren]

Hi all,

If a modification is done to use a raw pointer, it might also be
interesting to change it to a raw pointer to an ImageBase. Indeed the
actual pixel type and pixel data of the reference image should not add
any useful information.

This is what is done in the TransformToDeformationFieldSource in Rewiew.

My two cents,
Tom

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 18:59, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> The SetOutputParametersFromImage had the side effect of setting other
> ivars, UseReferenceImageOn and the ReferenceImage. This is not good
> practice in general to secretly change member data (at least in my
> opinion).
>
> Bill
>
> 2009/3/25 Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehmann at jouy.inra.fr>:
>>
>>
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>> Nothing much to say about all of that, but
>>
>> Le 25 mars 09 à 18:43, Luis Ibanez a écrit :
>>
>>> If Backward-Compatibility wasn't a factor, I will suggest
>>>
>>>   - Remove the SetOutputParametersFromConstImage() method.
>>>     There was no reason for adding such method, when the
>>>     same effect can be achieved by simply using a const raw
>>>     pointer in the SetOutputParametersFromImage() method.
>>>
>>>   - Make the SetOutputParametersFromImage() take a const
>>>     raw pointer (not a smart pointer).
>>>
>>>   - Solve the ambiguity and duplication of functionality
>>>     between the SetReference() image and the
>>>     SetOutputParametersFromImage() methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I'm not sure that we can clean up this in a way that
>>>  is consistent at this point...
>>>
>>>  We could deprecate the ConstImage() method, but since deprecation
>>>  doesn't imply removal, we have to maintain it anyways...
>>
>> It would be nice to put that in the desirable non backward compatible
>> changes, in the ITK 4.0 page on the wiki.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Being positive and looking to the Future:
>>>  ==========================================
>>>
>>>
>>>  It looks like we *MUST* implement some sort of
>>>  *systematic* code-review practice.
>>
>> Yes, it would be great, but we may have a similar problem than with IJ
>> contributions...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gaëtan
>>
>> --
>> Gaëtan Lehmann
>> Biologie du Développement et de la Reproduction
>> INRA de Jouy-en-Josas (France)
>> tel: +33 1 34 65 29 66    fax: 01 34 65 29 09
>> http://voxel.jouy.inra.fr  http://www.mandriva.org
>> http://www.itk.org  http://www.clavier-dvorak.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>