[vtk-developers] New directory structured for VTK?
Volpe, Christopher R (CRD)
volpecr at crd.ge.com
Thu Apr 5 09:44:50 EDT 2001
I agree that breaking up Graphics is a good idea. However, the tree in your pdf document seems to
have a surprising amount of depth and very little breadth. Do the dependencies really need to cascade
like that? For example, do the rendering classes really depend on I/O? The renderers don't care
where, specifically, their input comes from eventually (programmatic or file source) so why don't
they merely depend on the base filter classes? And what hybrid algorithms actually depend on the
renderers, as opposed to merely depending on both graphics and imaging filters themselves? And why is
local assumed to depend on everything, when it is a placeholder for individuals to add their own
classes? If I want to create one graphics filter, and I'm only building common, filtering, and
graphics (in theory I don't even need rendering if I'm only building an analysys filter that spits
out some statistics rather than a new dataset), why should I be forced to build hybrid algorithms?
From: Ken Martin [mailto:ken.martin at kitware.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:16 AM
To: vtk-developers at public.kitware.com
Subject: [vtk-developers] New directory structured for VTK?
Could folk take a look at the attached pdf? Another issue I forgot to mention, is there a better
place for the examplesTcl, examplesPython, examplesCxx code? New users seem to have trouble finding
it and it adds quite a bit to the source code tree? Any ideas?
More information about the vtk-developers