I think that makes sense and would propose it. We should discuss it.
Description
Description
Revisions and Commits
Revisions and Commits
| rMITK MITK | |||
| Restricted Differential Revision | rMITK101ce291f680 T30207-Add_dicom_inspector_plugin | ||
| Restricted Differential Revision | rMITK2a8634dd0c03 Activated dicominspector and DICOMCmdApps in the workbench config. | ||
| Restricted Differential Revision | rMITKeabf9fa3ade9 Optimized predicates to prohibit from selecting helper or hidden nodes. | ||
| Restricted Differential Revision | rMITKcf7f4a2ad5c5 Updated icon of the view | ||
Related Objects
Related Objects
- Mentioned In
- T30291: 2023 Week 48 (Very Late November)
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
It is a useful feature and should be part of the next release.
Open to dos:
- Checklist
- check dependencies of the view. If the view does not have more dependencies then our property inspector should be merged.
Comment Actions
The dicom inspector has one additional dependency to module MITKDICOM. Therefore if we merge the inspector plugins also our normal inspector could only be build if DICOM module is activated. (Which it currently is per default).
For modularity it would make sense to keep them still seperated.
For usability it would make sense to merge them as we normaly only build with DICOM.
What should be do?
Comment Actions
I think in doubt I would just move but not merge it for now. If we see that it is needed or wanted we can make the effort and merge it. It would be better than not offering this feature at all.