[Insight-developers] Wrapping Explosion

[William A. Hoffman]

Hi,

Are all the wrappings required to build ITK or an application in ITK?
If you think they are not general enough, I would recommend wrapping
them in your application only.   You should be able to wrap ITK classes
outside of the ITK tree.   With all the combinations, I could see
us with IOWA_EXPANDED_WRAPPING GE_EXPANDED_WRAPPING ... you get the idea.


-Bill


At 10:24 PM 11/19/2003, Hans J. Johnson wrote:
>Hello All,
>
>A week or so ago, Luis stated that we would be adding classes to the
>wrapping as they are needed.  Well, the Iowa group is in the process of
>needing an awful lot of ITK to be wrapped for TCL.
>
>I'm currently working through the details of adding a couple of hundred
>more filter combinations to the wrapping for our current project.  I'm
>afraid that if I do this, it will greatly increase the compile time of
>the wrapping code, and many people may not want all the filters that we
>intend to add.
>
>I have no problem with the increased compile times, but I wanted to make
>sure that it will not undermine some of the nightly regression tests.
>
>If compile times are an issue, I would propose that we (i.e. the iowa
>gorup) implement a CMAKE conditional -- EXPANDED_WRAPPING -- that when
>turned off compiles a core set of the wrapping functionallity, and when
>turned on compiles the greatly extened set functionality.
>
>We've started the work, and want to make sure it benefits others without
>causing too much headache by default.
>
>Regards,
>Hans
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Insight-developers mailing list
>Insight-developers at itk . org
>http://www . itk . org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers