Hi Dscho,<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">After thinking about this, I am not really sure that I want to change the<br>
name "Image", though. You should not use java.awt.Image and<br>
mpicbg.imglib.image.Image in the same class to begin with.<br></blockquote>
<br>I do not think it is good to say "you should not" in cases like this. We don't know everything people are going to be doing with these classes. If someone writes a java.awt.Image -> mpicbg.imglib.image.Image converter, for example, they will surely end up with at least one class referencing both classes.<br>
<br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
And in a sense, they _do_ mean the same. It's just that AWT is limited to<br>
2 dimensions, why imglib isn't.<br></blockquote>
<br>Sure. For me it a purely practical concern of two classes with the same name clashing.<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
I do not like ImageSpace, though. It contradicts my perception of what the<br>
class is about.<br></blockquote><br>I don't really like it either. How about "Img" mirroring the "img" in "imglib"? Kind of ugly but at least it's unique. Otherwise we could use "IImage" or "NDImage" or "ILImage" or "HyperImage"...<br>
<br>-Curtis<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Johannes Schindelin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de">Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Curtis Rueden wrote:<br>
<br>
> I agree with Grant. If the design is going to change and break existing<br>
> code—which I think is fine at this stage—I would like to see a different<br>
> name than "Image" to avoid clashing with java.awt.Image.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I agree that nomenclature might be something we want to change,<br>
but...<br>
<br>
> > "MultidimensionalImageDataBufferLikeThingThatIsNotReallyAnImage" ??<br>
<br>
... Grant, you're not German enough to be entitled to suggest such a<br>
variable name :-)<br>
<br>
I do not like ImageSpace, though. It contradicts my perception of what the<br>
class is about.<br>
<br>
After thinking about this, I am not really sure that I want to change the<br>
name "Image", though. You should not use java.awt.Image and<br>
mpicbg.imglib.image.Image in the same class to begin with.<br>
<br>
And in a sense, they _do_ mean the same. It's just that AWT is limited to<br>
2 dimensions, why imglib isn't.<br>
<br>
There are other class names I'd love to see changed, but "Image" is not<br>
one of them.<br>
<br>
Ciao,<br>
<font color="#888888">Johannes<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>