[ImageJ-devel] [fiji-devel] ImageJ 2.0.0-beta5 released

[Stephan Saalfeld]

Thanks for the reply :)---I still think that it is the best possible
solution.

Best,
Stephan




On Fri, 2013-03-15 at 16:58 +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Stephan Saalfeld wrote:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin at gmx.de> wrote:
> > 
> > >On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Albert Cardona wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2012/10/24 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin at gmx.de>:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Albert Cardona wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> 2012/10/23 Barry DeZonia <bdezonia at gmail.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> > Note that "IJ" in ImageJ2 scripting refers to the current ImageJ
> > >> > context, i.e. an instance of imagej.ImageJ. It does *not* refer to the
> > >> > static class ij.IJ -- which would not make too much sense anyway,
> > >> > because we are most likely not able to support too many of that class'
> > >> > functions.
> > >>
> > >> the ij.jar is a jar and is included in ImageJ2. I understand it may be
> > >> desirable to intercept some of its functionality such as IJ.log and
> > >> redirect it, but other than that, being a jar, one would except
> > >> beanshell and other scripting languages to load and use jars in the
> > >> classpath as usual.
> > >
> > >As in plain Java, if you have a local variable of the same name as a class
> > >you imported, the local variable takes precedence. You can always access
> > >the class by the full class name: ij.IJ.log("Hello, Albert");
> > >
> > >I am open to suggestions what might be a better name for the current
> > >ImageJ context (I considered "context", "this", "ImageJ", which all clash
> > >with existing entities even worse than "IJ"). It is still early enough to
> > >change things without much of a hassle.
> >
> > What about IJ2?
> 
> I am torn. I really like it for its simplicity but I do not want to
> ingrain the "2" too much into our design.
> 
> Ciao,
> Dscho
> 
> --