[ITK] [ITK-users] Future of WrapITK

Tue Dec 2 10:56:02 EST 2014

Thanks Brad,

I'll give SimpleITK a try and let you know how well its able to replace our current use of WrapITK.

By the way, I found Visual Studio 2008 Pro on one of our development machines, and I was able to build VTK 6.1.0 and ITK 4.6.1 with Python wrappings. So at least we are set for now except the OS X package and library needing C++11.

Cheers,
Lassi

________________________________
From: Bradley Lowekamp [blowekamp at mail.nih.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 17:26
To: Paavolainen Lassi
Cc: michkapopoff at gmail.com; insight-users at itk.org
Subject: Re: [ITK-users] Future of WrapITK

Hello,
We are using many image filters as well as the registration framework from the ITK. I think I read that the registration framework is not fully usable in SimpleITK.

The development of the SimpleITK registration interface is wrapping up. The current interface is quite usable, and powerful, although there are some minor issue that still need to be addressed.

I'd encourage you to give it a try. You may be able to solve you problem faster and better with the SimpleITK wrapping of the ITKv4 registration framework. Please let us know if it works for your problem and what you think of the interface [1].

Thanks,
Brad

[1] http://www.itk.org/SimpleITKDoxygen/html/classitk_1_1simple_1_1ImageRegistrationMethod.html

I'll follow the developments for ITK 4.8 and will test and help in anyways possible. Thank you all for your efforts with ITK wrappings.

Cheers,
Lassi

________________________________
From: michkapopoff at gmail.com<mailto:michkapopoff at gmail.com> [michkapopoff at gmail.com<mailto:michkapopoff at gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 17:39
To: Paavolainen Lassi
Cc: insight-users at itk.org<mailto:insight-users at itk.org>; community at itk.org<mailto:community at itk.org>
Subject: Re: [ITK-users] Future of WrapITK

Hi

we have been working on Wrapping so the development is going on.
Some small improvements were made for ITK 4.7.

I ported most of the code to Python3, but we have still an error which we have been working on, but is tricky to tackle.
I hope to get this done for ITK 4.8, and it will need some testing.

Fixing the problem for Clang is also under way, I don’t know how much resources we can put in it but I am hoping also for ITK 4.8, though I can not
promise anything here.

If you really need ITK wrappings on OS X, you can try my ITK binaries for homebrew: https://github.com/iMichka/homebrew-MacVTKITKPythonBottles
(Please open a ticket on the github page if you have any trouble with these binaries).

If you would like to help, there are a lot of things to do on the wrapping code.
(Writing examples for the ITK examples website is a good way to start with).

For SimpleITK vs Wrapping, it all depends on what image types you want to analyse, and what filters you want to use.

Michka

On 27 Nov 2014, at 14:08, Paavolainen Lassi <lassi.paavolainen at jyu.fi<mailto:lassi.paavolainen at jyu.fi>> wrote:

Hi,

I'm developing software that uses ITK through Python wrapping. After some period of slower development progress we are now moving from ITK 3.20 to ITK 4.x. The software is developed and packages are released for 64-bit Windows, Linux and OS X. The problem is that ITK 4.6.1 with Python wrappings can be built only for Linux. It seems that there is no way around the issues with GCCXML and new Visual Studio in Win or Clang in OS X 10.9.

The issue has been raised before in: http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/2014-July/050562.html

To follow up that question, has there been any progress related to GCCXML replacement or development of GCCXML to support new Visual Studio and Clang? Are there still plans for this or will wrapITK be deprecated and replaced by SimpleITK? Is there anything I can help with?

I noticed the Wiki page (http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK/Wrapping) where it is said that ITK 4.7 will include support for Python 3 but will it also fix the problem with Clang or new Visual Studios?

I have to admit that I haven't tried SimpleITK so I don't know whether it could provide the same flexibility as wrapITK and how much of ITK related code would need to be rewritten.

Cheers,
Lassi
_____________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com<http://www.kitware.com/>

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.php

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://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-users

_____________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com<http://www.kitware.com/>

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.php

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://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/community/attachments/20141202/6a6cb739/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_____________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.php

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://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-users