Posted by
dscho on
Dec 14, 2009; 3:27pm
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/ImageJ-development-involvement-contributions-tp3690030p3690035.html
Hi,
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> >2) Pursuing 100% backward compatibility is not tenable in the long run.
> > What we can do is to start up an new PluginPlus or whatever
> > interface, and not touch the old ones. With time we can depreciate
> > the old Plugin interface so that the development will turn gradually
> > to the new pattern. So at this point I agree with Raymond.
>
> If the new data model is flexible enough (and it better be), then it may
> be feasible to make things like ImagePlus a particular sub-class of
> SuperDuperImage, in which case most plugins may work with practically no
> changes. The ImagePlus/ImageStack/HyperStack/.... model is very
> primitive, after all. I
>
> 'm not complaining, just thinking about what would be possible if ImageJ
> supported all the data models and world coordinate systems of just the
> FITS standard (generalized hyperstacks, highly non-linear coordinates,
> all known map-projections).
Now, now. Recently there has been a flurry of mails that contain a lot of
buzzwords, and not so much substance to back it up. IMHO you should not
say that a certain model is very primitive unless you have come up with a
superior model _before_ shouting about.
Likewise, even if I agree that a powerful library can be wrapped into a
backwards-compatible library, if you cannot substantiate your claim by
evidence, I would suggest producing that evidence first.
Oh, and please tell who you are quoting. It is only because I followed
the thread that I know that you are quoting Dimiter. In science, we have
this long tradition of citing our sources properly, let's not forget that
on this mailing list, either.
Ciao,
Dscho