[Insight-users] Cswig_java/Wrap_ITK generate different java APIs

[Blair Cruz]

It works fine with the Wrap_ITK option. except that I cant set the
tkRecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilterIF3IF3_Pointer to a
itkMultiResolutionImageRegistrationMethodIF3IF3_Pointer object

The registration object expects a SWIGTYPE object where as with the
cswig_java build API I can set the output of the pyramid to
registrator.setFixedPyramid(...

Like I said, it's not a big deal, just a slight performance issue and thank
you very much for the response.  I will post something if I find a way to
get the MultiResPyramid class working with the bindings.

-blair

On 2/1/07, Gaëtan Lehmann <gaetan.lehmann at jouy.inra.fr> wrote:
>
> Le Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:02:26 +0100, Blair Cruz <blair.cruz at gmail.com> a
> écrit:
>
> > Quick question.  I noticed that when I build ITK with the cswig_java
> > option
> > I get a jar that has a different api then when I use the wrap_itk
> > option.  I
> > particular, the class names change, an example is:
> >
> > itkMutualInformationImageToImageMetricIF3IF3_Pointer is generated with
> > the
> > wrap_itk option in cmake, and:
> > itkMutualInformationImageToImageMetricF3F3_Pointer is generated with the
> > cswig_java option in cmake.
> >
> > There are a few other differences in the API as well, for instance, with
> > the
> > wrap_itk option I cant set a
> > itkRecursiveMultiResolutionPyramidImageFilterIF3IF3_Pointer object to a
> > itkMultiResolutionImageRegistrationMethodIF3IF3_Pointer object.
>
> The name of the template instantiations have been changed to be more
> consistent in all the instantiations, and more descriptive.
>
> > I can get
> > by without this but I do notice a performance difference.
>
> I doubt you can see any difference: cswig and WrapITK both use the same
> system (cable swig), and wrap the same code (ITK).
>
> > There is also a
> > very noticeable size difference in the compiled libraries (~60mb).
>
> WrapITK produce huge binaries because it instantiate a lot of templated
> classes. On one side you get a lot much classes, but on the other side,
> you have bigger binaries.
> Note that you can easily customize your WrapITK to fit your needs, by
> removing the wrap_*.cmake files of the class you don't use, or by turning
> to OFF the WRAP_ options of the modules or the types you don't use. All
> those methods will highly impact the size of the binary.
> You may also want to build WrapITK in MinSizeRel mode, and to turn on
> explicit instantiations in cmake.
>
> >  I would
> > use the cswig_java option however it wont build with this on os x.
>
> cswig has open the way, but should be replaced by WrapITK in the next
> releases. I don't think cswig has ever worked properly out of the box with
> java on mac os x.
>
> >
> > This is not an issue right now but in the future I will have to address
> > some
> > performance issues and I would like to know why this is happening.
> >
>
> I hope to have replied above. Please let us know if you have any problem,
> or if you think to things which could be enhanced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gaetan
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20070201/4603efae/attachment.htm