[Insight-developers] ITKv4: Features vs Clean up

[Luis Ibanez]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for volunteering.


The plans for the global clean up are here:
http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Global_Code_Review

The procedure is described here
http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Modularization/Code_Reviews/Process#Git-Based

Essentially:

We have a duplicate Git repository
https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/itk-retroactive-review

that contains a .txt file for every source code file in ITK.

Instead of making bug entries in MANTIS,
just edit those .txt files, and commit them.

Of course, if some issues are actual bugs,
please feel free to report them in MANTIS.


More comments below...


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Tom Vercauteren <tom.vercauteren at m4x.org> wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> I would like to help in the cleanup process (especially for the code I
> worked on in the past) but have unfortunately very little time for it.
> The least I could do is pinpoint some places that I believe require
> cleanup. The problem is I don't really know if such a task is wanted
> and if so, how it should be done. Should I file bug reports  for each
> cleanup task and mark them as feature requests? But then, who would be
> in charge of triaging these feature requests? Are other more effective
> options available?
>

http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Modularization/Code_Reviews/Process#Git-Based
https://github.com/InsightSoftwareConsortium/itk-retroactive-review

> For the time being, there are a least a few places on the top of my
> head that require cleanup (some of which might be considered as
> features depending on how you look at it). Sorted by order of
> importance:
>
> 1) Bad design in ImportImageContainer.
> https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/Modules/Core/Common/include/itkImportImageContainer.h
> The memory allocation and deallocation functions have an inconsistent
> signature. One uses a member and the others returns a pointer:
>  virtual TElement * AllocateElements(ElementIdentifier size) const;
>  virtual void DeallocateManagedMemory();
>
> This makes it really difficult to override the class in a correct
> manner. I have actually stumped into a bug in TestImportImageContainer
> coming from this design issue ( that I haven't filed yet :( )
> https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/Modules/Core/Common/test/itkFactoryTestLib.cxx
> With this TestImportImageContainer class, reallocating an image will
> fail. This is bad since it will most certainly be the first thing
> people will look at when trying to override the default memory
> handling of ITK.
>

Fair enough...

>
> 2) The unicode filename problem on windows.
> Most of the low-level code necessary to deal with unicode filenames
> through utf-8 encoding is already in the repository but it isn't used
> yet. What still need to be done is use this low-level code for all IO
> operations. More detail in:
> http://www.itk.org/Bug/view.php?id=9623
>
>
> 3) There are a lot of useless vector-specific classes that were
> introduced probably for MSVC 6. It might be the right time to merge
> them back into the corresponding "scalar" classes.
> http://itk.org/Bug/view.php?id=2712
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Wish_List#Image_Registration
>

Yes,
Cory, Arnaud, Gaetan and Brad L. have been improving
the support for multiple components...
We need raise the priority of this one,
since it is so fundamental for
Microscopy and for Remote Sensing.


>
> 4) Some default options are not the most meaningful ones:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Wish_List#Backward_compatibility_and_cleanup
> For example Gaussian smoothing uses either a sigma defined in terms of
> physical space or pixel space depending on its implementation
> (discrete versus recursive).
>

Yeap, the API is inconsistent.
Plus some take Sigma, while others take Variance...

>
> 5) Others inconsistencies
> http://www.itk.org/Bug/view.php?id=7351
> http://www.itk.org/Bug/view.php?id=8944
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_Release_4/Wish_List#Make_the_boundary_conditions_usage_consistent_across_the_toolkit
> For example the behavior of the interpolators outside the image domain
> is not practical. This is one of the reason why I implemented
> VectorLinearInterpolateNearestNeighborExtrapolateImageFunction
> https://github.com/Kitware/ITK/blob/master/Modules/Nonunit/Review/include/itkVectorLinearInterpolateNearestNeighborExtrapolateImageFunction.h
> Ideally, the functionnality of this class should be handled by
> LinearInterpolateImageFunction.
>
>
> Hope this helps,


It certainly does.


   Many Thanks


        Luis



-----------------------------
> Tom
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 15:06, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com> wrote:
>> I want to second Brad L. comment regarding
>> our current misplaced focus on ITKv4.
>>
>> There is a disproportionate number of changes
>> that are introducing new features in the toolkit,
>> when we are supposed to be focused on cleaning
>> up and restructuring for the next 10 years.
>>
>> I suggest that we prioritize every patch in Gerrit
>> based on whether it is:
>>
>>
>> 1) Bug fix
>> 2) Clean up resulting from code reviews
>> 3) Needed for refactoring (FEM, Regist, LevelSets)
>> ....
>> 99) New features
>>
>>
>> We have limited time and resources to do all
>> the refactoring and revision of ITKv4 and we
>> are being side-tracked dealing with changes
>> that are not part of the ITKv4 charter.
>>
>>
>>       Luis
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>>
>> 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://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>>
>