[Insight-developers] [Insight-users] INSIGHT JOURNAL: managedITK (ITK 3.8 ?)

[Gaëtan Lehmann]

Hi Dan,

I'm resurrecting an old subject :-)

Le 8 juil. 08 à 16:04, Gaëtan Lehmann a écrit :

>
> Le 8 juil. 08 à 08:07, Dan Mueller a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> 2. Refactoring.
>> I have taken a brief look at the new WrapITK. Although you said it  
>> was
>> designed to be reusable for something else than CableSWIG or SWIG, it
>> seems there is still (significant?) refactoring work for this to
>> become a reality. For example, it still assumes CableSWIG is  
>> required.
>> As with many ITK developers, I do ITK stuff during my personal time,
>> and therefore I have limited resources to spend on this particular
>> project. How much help would you (and other ITK Developers) be
>> providing to make the new WrapITK truly independent from SWIG? Or  
>> have
>> I misinterpreted things?
>
> There are only a few things to do to not require cableswig and swig  
> anymore.
> It hasn't been done yet, because both python and java requires it,  
> but all the internal code is well separated. I can complete that  
> part alone, as soon as I found a little time to work on wrapitk.
>

Finally, I did it. WrapITK can now build without cable swig and swig.
The Doc language - not much a language, so I'm thinking to rename  
"language" in "target" or something like that - can be built without  
them for example.

http://code.google.com/p/wrapitk/source/detail?r=191

>
>>
>>
>> 4. Module names.
>> The module names *are* important for ManagedITK -- in the sense that
>> each module is compiled as a separate *.dll. The Microsoft compiler
>> can not handle putting all the files into a single dll. As such the
>> dll names need to be meaningful so that users can intuitively find
>> their filters. I do not think the WrapITK module names are intuitive.
>> For example: how do you differentiate which filters are in
>> "SimpleFilters" versus "Filtering"?
>
> I don't differentiate them. I've never been pleased by the current  
> module names.
> There is for sure a big place for discussions on this side.

I think that's the place where we should begin to work, if you're  
still interested in merging the two projects.

>
>>
>>
>> 6. Backwards compatibility.
>> Does WrapITK fall under the same backwards compatibility policy as  
>> the
>> rest of ITK? If so, I'm not sure I would be willing to concede on all
>> the above points in order for ManagedITK to be integrated with
>> WrapITK. However, if a middle ground could be found, then I think it
>> may be possible to move forward.
>
> WrapITK is marked as experimental, so I don't think it fall under  
> the ITK's backward policy.
> That being said, I tried to make things as backward compatible as  
> possible in python, with deprecation warnings when required (and  
> possible).
>
> Currently, external projects may need some small changes to build  
> with wrapitk unstable. Python code made for wrapitk stable runs  
> without changes on wrapitk unstable, but produce some deprecation  
> warnings.

Things are fixed on that side - all my contributions build both on  
wrapitk stable and unstable for example.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une signature ?lectronique PGP
URL: <http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20090128/efcdc9d1/attachment.pgp>