Hi,
Sorry, I didn't read all of your mails and just noticed you had
problem regarding layer ordering. Don't know if it helps but it is
worth a note: If you want to deactivate dynamic layer assignment for
certain data nodes you can add a bool property called "fixedLayer"
and set it to true. Those data nodes keep their layer. See
QmitkDataStorageTreeModel.cpp:670.
Cheers,
Stefan
*Von:*Rostislav Khlebnikov [mailto:rostislav.khlebni...@kcl.ac.uk]
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 3. April 2014 14:46
*An:* mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
*Betreff:* Re: [mitk-users] Persistent helper objects, recursive
deletion, and incremental scene saving
Hi guys,
I just tried it with the QSortFilterProxyModel and it works
absolutely perfectly (node insertions/deletions as well as context
menus). The nodes that need to be hidden are hidden, yet the layers
are applied correctly and thus the scene saves and loads smoothly.
So ping me if you feel you would like to integrate these changes
(probably after 2014.03 release) and I will create the regular
bug-branch-pull_request chain.
Rostislav.
On 03/04/2014 12:43, Rostislav Khlebnikov wrote:
An alternative approach would be to add all the nodes to the
QmitkDataStorageTreeModel and thus have the layers adjusted for
all the nodes and delegate which nodes are actually shown to a
QSortFilterProxyModel
<http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qsortfilterproxymodel.html>.
Then the loader could be left as is (although I feel it would
make more sence with the changes I described before). This would
also nicely separate the core responsibilities of
a QmitkDataStorageTreeModel (DataStorage sync) from the actual
display of items which will be delegated to QSortFilterProxyModel.
Again, please tell me if these changes seem reasonable to you as
I am quite eager to implement them and have time for it in the
coming days.
Rostislav.
On 03/04/2014 12:28, Rostislav Khlebnikov wrote:
Hi,
To Ingmar:
thanks for the tip! I can avoid the MITK core modifications at least for
hiding the nodes.
The layer problem is however still there.
To all:
I am wondering why does the layer property have such a strong influence
on creating the parent-child relationships.
Isn't the information about the parent-child relationship in conjunction
with a simple topological sort enough?
I feel it would be better to take the UID-based information to create a
graph, then make a topo-sort on it and only then perhaps to use the
layer property to sort the sibling items?
Would such a contribution to SceneReaderV1 be welcome?
Rostislav.
On 01/04/2014 20:01, Wegner wrote:
Hi Rostislav,
did you see, that you also can use nodes without a dedicated
BaseData
(empty node) to hide child-nodes?
There is an option in the Workbench preferences (section
DataManager)
where you can toggle visibility of these nodes. Default behavior is
(i
think) that empty nodes are not shown in the DataManager. All
child-nodes are also invisible. For debug purposes you could
activate
the preference and for regular users you can deactivate it again.
Maybe that solves one of your problems.
;) Ingmnar
Am 01.04.2014 19:52, schrieb Rostislav Khlebnikov:
Hi guys,
it seems to me that there is no way to save the objects marked
as
"helper object" when the scene is being saved (it is kinda
hard-coded in
the scene writer). While I feel that this is absolutely
justified (these
are "helper objects" after all), I would like to have some
nodes hidden
from the user, but which would be saved with a project. My use
case is:
I have the PlanarFigure data node which represents a
segmentation of a
vessel path cross section. It could be a simple circle created
manually,
but it can also be a result of smoothing the boundary of a 2D
segmentation. The segmentation is performed on a small (say,
50x50mm)
slice extracted from a reference image and I want to save this
slice
along with the segmented slice image to the scene. On the other
hand I
don't want to clutter the Data Manager with these nodes. After
looking
at the QmitkDataStorageTreeModel and
QmitkExtFileSaveProjectAction it
seems to me that this behavior is impossible without
modifications to
the MITK code.
What do you think would be a good approach to this problem? For
now I
have modified the QmitkDataStorageTreeModel to not show the
nodes marked
as ("hidden object" || "helper object"). It works fine except
that the
layers are not adjusted for helper objects and I have to set
them
manually for the scene to load correctly. Overall, I feel that
this is
quite a dirty hack and I would like to hear your opinion on
this.
There is still one more problem, however. As the nodes are not
visible
in the Data Manager, they cannot be directly deleted when the
parent
node is. I can obviously handle this in my view which creates
these
objects, but what if the view is closed? It would be nice if I
could
mark a node as "Requires hierarchical deletion", which would be
processed by the data storage. What would be the best approach
to this?
Perhaps having a data storage listener which would be
registered when my
plugin is loaded? Or having my own datastorage subclass which
would be
set as the active data storage? Or do you think this might be
useful for
a wider range of applications and could be implemented in the
StandaloneDataStorage? Perhaps, a ContourModelSet might be just
a node
with metainformation about its hidden children - then the
separate
mappers, interactors and IO classes /for the set /wouldn't be
necessary
anymore and it might rely on the ContourModel subclasses for
that. I
feel that this is a topic for a separate discussion though and
I will
write another e-mail about that as it is unclear how to
implement some
of the necessary functionalities, but I do believe this is a
more
flexible approach.
One unrelated thing is the incremental scene saving. What I
mean by that
is while a user works on a project it would be nice to save the
progress
from time to time. However, the fact that saving an image takes
a very
significant amount of time and that it is being repacked evey
time the
scene is saved, I'm afraid that the users will be discouraged
to do so.
So it would be nice to speed up the saving process - perhaps by
detecting that the image hasn't changed and it doesn't need to
be
repacked or by having the save process in a separate thread.
I'm pretty
sure such things already came up and perhaps there is already
some
solution to this.
Thank you,
Rostislav.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
mitk-users mailing list
mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mitk-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
mitk-users mailing list
mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mitk-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
mitk-users mailing list
mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mitk-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
mitk-users mailing list
mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:mitk-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mitk-users
