-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Planetary/PDS tools moving foward #45
Labels
Comments
It's unclear what option 3 is. Are these the three options?
|
I think there is a 4th option. Create a library package shared by all three UI tools. As you're developing |
Yes those are the three options but I like the fourth option! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@spacerockjock
I'm about to get stared on a
mer_spect
equivalent (exportable ROIS, polygon ROIs, multiple ROIs, etc.) and everything is pointing to the fact that bothpdsview
andpdsspect
(temporary name...have not thought about the name...) should depend on the very similar models and (also repeated use of the histogram tool). Essentially,pdsspect
will be a more complicated tool thanpdsview
and will subclass and reuse a lot ofpdsview's
classes and tools. I could do this by making a new package forpdsspect
and makingpdsview
a dependency, createpdsspect
withinpdsview
, or start a new package that will housepdsview
,pystamps
,pdsspect
, and any other future tools we create and deprecatepdsview
andpystamps
. My problem with the first option is it will become clearer as I makepdsspect
howpdsview
can be refactored even more to make it easier to reuse code. Then I will have simultaneous development on the two projects and that points me to option 2 or 3. My problem with option 2 is then pdsview is not clear on its purpose. The way it is setup/named right now is it is a one tool package and it won't be clear that there are other tools available. Which leads me to option 3 which I think is most preferable. It will be clear on it's purposes, allow for tools to reuse and sublcass each other much more easily, and make it far easier for the tools to interact/launch each other. The main concern is this will cause some reorganization on PlanetaryPy and we will have to takepdsview
of of pip. I don't want to make any decisions about these tools moving forward alone and would love input on what people think is best moving forward.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: