[NeXus-committee] Vote on NXpinhole and NXslit

[Wintersberger, Eugen]

Hi Ben

On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 11:44 +0200, Benjamin Watts wrote:
> Hi,
>    Aren't the proposed classes effectively the same as an NXaperture
> that describes the size of the "hole", as is allowed in the
> definition? I don't see any need for the proposed classes, but I'll
> give Eugen a chance to explain before I vote against it.

You are right, NXaperture would do the job too but has several flaws
1.) it is simply to complex for a simple pinhole or a 4 blade slit. 
    I would only use it in the case of very complex apertures. 
    From an object oriented point of view NXpinhole and NXslit
    are specialized versions of NXaperture with a very simple 
    interface. 
2.) NXaperture depends highly on NXgeometry. Unfortunately 
    the primitive shapes described in NXgeometry are not 
    well defined which makes them rather difficult to use. 

In fact I would find it more convenient to have simple classes for the
standard situations (pinholes and 2- or 4-blade slits) rather than
always use the complex NXaperture. Have you ever tried to determine the
size of the slit gap from NXaperture? - It is a nightmare to do this.

regards
   Eugen 

> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > NeXus-committee mailing list
> > NeXus-committee at nexusformat.org
> > http://lists.nexusformat.org/mailman/listinfo/nexus-committee
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NeXus-committee mailing list
> NeXus-committee at nexusformat.org
> http://lists.nexusformat.org/mailman/listinfo/nexus-committee

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.nexusformat.org/pipermail/nexus-committee/attachments/20140506/575d6db4/attachment.sig>