Hi Curtis, On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Curtis Rueden wrote:
> * scijava-ops -> scijava-ops-OLD (or moved to "old-master" topic branch) > -- preserve previous effort until all code has been successfully > migrated out I would like to do that anyway. > * imagej-ops core framework -> scijava-ops > -- the core framework is not image specific How about doing that later? There is no need to stress ourselves out about it; we can easily do that anytime. > * ij-core module framework -> migrate into scijava-ops > -- that framework includes modules, commands, displays and widgets > -- Christian asked me: why not move ij-core's module framework into > scijava-common? > -- I strongly considered that, but instead I think it fits perfectly into > the OPS framework I agree, but I would suggest doing that later, too. > * imagej-ops image processing ops -> stay in imagej-ops > -- these ops are image-specific, and depend on ImgLib2 That makes absolute sense (as the above), but I would like to focus on using ij-ops first. Traditionally, it has been much easier to develop a fast-moving project when it is maintained in a single repository. > * imagej-ops widgets -> stay in imagej-ops > -- and move Swing-specific code into ij-ui-swing I guess that probably needs to happen sooner rather than later because the technical debt incurred by mixing UI with processing can be a huge pain in the back side. > * ij-core scripting framework -> scijava-scripting > -- scripting support is not image-specific > > * ij-scripting-* -> scijava-scripting-* > -- each of these has different, often very large, dependencies I agree that this is a good plan, but again, I would love to see this happening later. Preferably after switching Fiji to the ImageJ2 script editor because I see a couple of architectural questions looming for us; These architectural issues are much easier solved when all involved code lives in the same repository. > * other ij-core unrelated stuff -> think more; consider case-by-case > -- maybe some goes to scijava-common... > -- would be nice if the "ij-core" module could completely go away Whoa. Radical food for thought. But I begin to see your reasoning and to agree. > I know that such changes would rock the boat... again. But before we get > too much farther along I would like to have a very clear, sensible policy > which answers the question: "What is SciJava, and what is ImageJ?" And I > think the structure above would do that, and be a really strong foundation > for the next decade at least. Makes sense. How about revisiting the split in two weeks? We could even call it milestone 0.2.0. Ciao, Dscho _______________________________________________ ImageJ-devel mailing list ImageJ-devel@imagej.net http://imagej.net/mailman/listinfo/imagej-devel
