[Insight-users] ImageFileWriter not throwing exceptions

Luis Ibanez luis.ibanez at kitware.com
Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:20:33 -0500


Hi Viet,


This progress reporting was done with a simplified
version of the MetaImage reader that was used in
Code/IO at the time (june 2002).

In August 2002 we start using the MetaImage library
from the Utilities directory, just as we do with png,
jpeg and tiff now.  In this arrangement it is no longer
possible to invoke progress events from the readers since
the code in /Utilities is not aware of the existence
of ITK.

In order to get around this we will have to modify
the IO third party libraries to insert some sort of
callbacks, then provide such callbacks from the
respective ImageIO classes and translate the calls
into InvokeEvent() calls.

You are welcome to enter this also as a 'feature
request' in the bug tracker. I agree with you in
that this is a neat functionality to have. However
it may not make it to the top of the priority list.



Regards,


     Luis


--------------------
BUI XUAN Viet wrote:

> Hi Luis, 
> 
> Thanks a lot for answering my questions.
> 
> 
>>I would suggest you to enter this issue as
>>a "feature requrest" in the ITK bug tracker.
>>
>>You can create yor own account at
>>
>>      http://www.itk.org/Bug/
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Done!
> 
> 
>>Are you interested in a particular file
>>format at this point ?
> 
> 
> Not any format in particular, it was only a general comment because the
> problem happened to me when I was trying to write a "big" raw file.
> 
> On a different subject but still regarding fileIOs, after a request from
> a colleague of mine, some changes had been committed to the cvs of itk
> in order to allow progress events to be invoked by metaimageio and then
> properly handled by observers in order to update progressbars of the
> program we're writing
> (http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/2002-June/000535.html). It
> worked brilliantly at the time, but it doesn't seem to be the case
> anymore (for IOs), although it still works fine for filters.
> 
> It seems that the feature has been *removed* at some point, is that
> intentional?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Viet
> 
> 
>