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

[Gaëtan Lehmann]

Le 7 juil. 08 à 22:15, Gaëtan Lehmann a écrit :

>
>>
>> Is there material that can be merged/shared with the other
>> wrappings ?
>
> Dan,
>
> I wanted to ask you the same question — Luis did it first :-)
>
> Despite you said that WrapITK is a "totally separate project",  
> ManagedITK has reused lot of code from WrapITK. Actually, they still  
> share a lot of code — a quick look at   
> managed_itkCastImageFilter.cmake, from ManagedITK, and  
> wrap_itkCastImageFilter.cmake would be quite convincing: they even  
> share the comments :-)
> They are not all as similar of course, so the question is:
>
>  Would it be possible to avoid the current code duplication?
>
> The reason why I wanted to ask that question now, is because WrapITK  
> has made great progress in the last weeks. Some times ago, I began  
> to work on a pure swig implementation of WrapITK. The work was left  
> unchanged for a quite long time, but recently, Ali decided to work  
> on the java part. His work convinced me to work again on python  
> part. At this time, wrapitk unstable is nearly completed in python —  
> I already began to use it for real image analysis task, to benefit  
> of the numerous improvements — and Ali is using java part on his  
> side. The code is available at:
>
>  http://code.google.com/p/wrapitk/source
>
> In WrapITK unstable, I took care to completely separe the type  
> declarations — in the wrap_*.cmake — and the language specific code.  
> The goal is to make all that hard job of defining template  
> parameters for type instantiation fully reusable for something else  
> than wrapping with cableswig or swig. The examples I had in mind were:
> * wrapping python with PyBoost
> * ExplicitITK
> * ManagedITK
>
> If you agree, I would be pleased to try to see with you a way to  
> merge ManagedITK and WrapITK.


After a bit of reading of ManagedITK code, I'm quite convinced that  
there is some factorizing to do, and that it would benefit to both  
projects.
The big differences I see are:
* the code generator, of course very specific of ManagedITK
* the Common directory, which is specific of ManagedITK
* the wrapped types — some types available in WrapITK are not in  
ManagedITK (complex types for example) and some in ManagedITK are not  
in WrapITK (RGBA for example). It would be nice for both to have  
them :-)
* the modules names
* the managed property definitions
* the underscore before the template parameters in the instantiated name
* the external projects implementation

Specific code is quite well separated, and some of the code specific  
of one project would benefit to the other.
The only specific code mixed with generic code at this time is the  
managed property definitions. I do think they can be quite nicely  
moved outside the generic files, in the /Languages/Managed/Properties/  
for example (to reuse the wrapitk directory layout). Then, when  
END_WRAP_CLASS() is called in the /Modules/*/wrap_*.cmake files, the  
content of corresponding managed_*.cmake file can be read (if it  
exists), to define the properties for the current classes.
That way, all generic code can be common to both projects, and  
specific code is localized in a single subdirectory of the /Languages  
directory.

The module names may be a problem depending on their importance in  
ManagedITK.

The rest looks much like details — underscore in name can be used in  
wrapitk or can be manageditk specific without problem, and external  
project shouldn't be that difficult to implement in one way or the  
other.

Do you think this kind of organization for managed properties would  
fit your needs?
There are surely many other problems — I hope they are not too  
difficult :-)

Regards,

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: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20080708/d5194f52/attachment.pgp>