[Insight-developers] Doc updates for ImageIOBase

[Steve M. Robbins]

Hi Bill,

You met my expectations.  :-)

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 11:45:14PM -0500, Bill Lorensen wrote:

> We don't know whether any of our customers use WriteImageInformation
> and m_Initialized. Many customers have written their own IMAGE IO
> classes and it would not be fair to them to change the API. Since we
> have released that code, we cannot remove it.

I was not seriously proposing to remove these things.  But I do wonder
how to document them at the abstract class level since the
documentation that exists is wrong.

For example: should WriteImageInformation() be documented as obsolete
and become an empty virtual function in ImageIOBase (i.e. existing
implementations can override it, but new ImageIOBase subclasses
needn't bother)?  Or should it be documented to actually write the
info and bug reports created for each subclass that doesn't do so?  Or
simply be documented as "some subclasses may implement this" (the
status quo)?  Or ... ?

Thanks,
-Steve

P.S.  Do you have some data on how many customers have private ImageIO
classes?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090102/7a7e729c/attachment.pgp>