headers
Prabhu Ramachandran | 1 Dec 10:34

Re: [M2] New source names?

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> You were asking for some feedback on the names. First of all, I am not
> sure these sources need to be prefixed with 'VTK': 'ImageDataSource', or,
> if you are worried the name is too generic, maybe 'ImageExamples', or
> 'StandardImage', or 'ImageFactory'. As for the polydata source, I am
> quite afraid that it may be hard for the non-specialist to figure out
> what 'PolyData' is about. I would almost like to call 'StandardWidget',
> or better, 'WidgetFactory', to reflect the 'StandardImage'. So we would
> now have 'ParametricSurface', 'WidgetFactory' and 'ImageFactory'.

Thanks for the feedbakc. How about ImageFactory and SurfaceFactory?  I 
don't quite like widget factory since widgets mean something specific in 
VTK.

cheers,
prabhu
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gael Varoquaux | 1 Dec 10:35
Favicon

Re: [M2] New source names?

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:04:25PM +0530, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
> Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> > You were asking for some feedback on the names. First of all, I am not
> > sure these sources need to be prefixed with 'VTK': 'ImageDataSource', or,
> > if you are worried the name is too generic, maybe 'ImageExamples', or
> > 'StandardImage', or 'ImageFactory'. As for the polydata source, I am
> > quite afraid that it may be hard for the non-specialist to figure out
> > what 'PolyData' is about. I would almost like to call 'StandardWidget',
> > or better, 'WidgetFactory', to reflect the 'StandardImage'. So we would
> > now have 'ParametricSurface', 'WidgetFactory' and 'ImageFactory'.

> Thanks for the feedbakc. How about ImageFactory and SurfaceFactory?  I 
> don't quite like widget factory since widgets mean something specific in 
> VTK.

How about 'ObjectFactory', then? Or 'GlyphFactory'. I actually like
'GlyphFactory' best. 'SurfaceFactory' is quite OK, thought,
IMHO.

Gaël
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prabhu Ramachandran | 1 Dec 19:25

Re: [M2] New source names?

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> How about 'ObjectFactory', then? Or 'GlyphFactory'. I actually like
> 'GlyphFactory' best. 'SurfaceFactory' is quite OK, thought,
> IMHO.

GlyphFactory is seems a little too vague.  SurfaceFactory seems a little 
too generic.  Or SimpleSurface/SimpleGlyph or ShapeFactory?  This is a pain.

prabhu
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hans Meine | 1 Dec 19:59
Favicon

Re: [M2] New source names?

On Monday 01 December 2008 19:25:56 Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
> Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> > How about 'ObjectFactory', then? Or 'GlyphFactory'. I actually like
> > 'GlyphFactory' best. 'SurfaceFactory' is quite OK, thought,
> > IMHO.
>
> GlyphFactory is seems a little too vague.  SurfaceFactory seems a little
> too generic.  Or SimpleSurface/SimpleGlyph or ShapeFactory?  This is a
> pain.

Technically, I like GlyphFactory and maybe SurfaceFactory.  Thinking about a 
MayaVi user's POV, I would suggest something like "Built-in Surfaces" and 
"Built-in Images"; maybe that (mangled) could lead to class names as well.

Hope the 2 cents help,
  Hans
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gael Varoquaux | 1 Dec 21:04
Favicon

Re: [M2] New source names?

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 07:59:02PM +0100, Hans Meine wrote:
> On Monday 01 December 2008 19:25:56 Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
> > Gael Varoquaux wrote:
> > > How about 'ObjectFactory', then? Or 'GlyphFactory'. I actually like
> > > 'GlyphFactory' best. 'SurfaceFactory' is quite OK, thought,
> > > IMHO.

> > GlyphFactory is seems a little too vague.  SurfaceFactory seems a little
> > too generic.  Or SimpleSurface/SimpleGlyph or ShapeFactory?  This is a
> > pain.

> Technically, I like GlyphFactory and maybe SurfaceFactory.  Thinking about a 
> MayaVi user's POV, I would suggest something like "Built-in Surfaces" and 
> "Built-in Images"; maybe that (mangled) could lead to class names as well.

Yeah, "BuiltInImage" and "BuiltInSurface" seems nice (no plural, to be
consistent with "ParametricSurface".

> Hope the 2 cents help,

They sure do. We absolutely need user feedback on this.

Gaël
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Prabhu Ramachandran | 2 Dec 20:15

Re: [M2] New source names?

Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>>> GlyphFactory is seems a little too vague.  SurfaceFactory seems a little
>>> too generic.  Or SimpleSurface/SimpleGlyph or ShapeFactory?  This is a
>>> pain.
> 
>> Technically, I like GlyphFactory and maybe SurfaceFactory.  Thinking about a 
>> MayaVi user's POV, I would suggest something like "Built-in Surfaces" and 
>> "Built-in Images"; maybe that (mangled) could lead to class names as well.
> 
> Yeah, "BuiltInImage" and "BuiltInSurface" seems nice (no plural, to be
> consistent with "ParametricSurface".

I'm going for BuiltinImage and BuiltinSurface (Python's builtin is 
called __builtin__ and not __built_in__) then and will commit this shortly.

Thanks for the feedback.

cheers,
prabhu
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Gael Varoquaux | 2 Dec 22:04
Favicon

Re: [M2] New source names?

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:45:31AM +0530, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:
> I'm going for BuiltinImage and BuiltinSurface (Python's builtin is 
> called __builtin__ and not __built_in__) then and will commit this shortly.

Great. I like those names. I think they are quite explicite.

Gaël
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane