[IGSTK-Developers] classname inconsistency

[Kevin Gary]

Julien Jomier wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the flow of emails...
>
> I think we should rename the ImageSpatialObject classes to be 
> ImageObject for consistency between classes in igstk. The main reason 
> is that most of the object classes are following this convention, i.e 
> igstkBoxObject, etc...
>
> Also, when referring to a SpatialObject I always think about the ITK 
> one, which can be confusing.
>
> Let me know what you think,
>
> Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> IGSTK-Developers mailing list
> IGSTK-Developers at public.kitware.com
> http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/igstk-developers

Well I know I am not involved with the direct coding, but I'll
throw in my $.02 anyway. I would suggest going the other way -
renaming all the "Object" classes to be "SpatialObject". For
one I would find it confusing to have classes suffixed as just
Object, and SpatialObjects are a component layer in the
architecture so having them named as such will help with the
mapping between our external docs and the code structures...

K2

-- 
===
Kevin A. Gary, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
DCST, ASU East       
(480)727-1373
http://kgary2.east.asu.edu
kgary at asu.edu