Skip to content
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

Align with CCPPETMR naming conventions #54

Closed
paskino opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #61
Closed

Align with CCPPETMR naming conventions #54

paskino opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #61
Assignees

Comments

@paskino
Copy link
Contributor

paskino commented Mar 13, 2018

As we have many similarities with the CCPPETMR reconstruction framework SIRF (and shared developers).

Let us align more on the naming conventions: see SIRF Developer Guide.

https://github.com/CCPPETMR/SIRF/blob/master/doc/UserGuide.md#basic-classes-

@paskino
Copy link
Contributor Author

paskino commented Mar 14, 2018

I will start with

  • SinogramData -> AcquisitionData
  • VolumeData -> ImageData

Possibly followed by Operator -> AcquisitionModel. Let me know

I will keep DataSetProcessor as main class.

WIP in rename_as_ccppetmr branch

@paskino
Copy link
Contributor Author

paskino commented Mar 14, 2018

Actually it seems that I will need to do first
DataSet -> DataContainer

@jakobsj
Copy link
Contributor

jakobsj commented Mar 14, 2018

Consideration about AcquisitionModel:

edoardo.pasca [12:37 PM]
the only thing I'm not quite sure of is whether you want to rename Operators as AcquisitionModel

Jakob [12:52 PM]
yeah I'm also not sure about that
I mean AcquisitionModel is more descriptive so I like that
But we will have some operators that are not AcquisitionModels
Like a finite difference operator
So perhaps AcquisitionModel could be a certain type of Operator

edoardo.pasca [12:53 PM]
a subclass

Jakob [12:54 PM]
Yes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants