SourceAndConverter naming

[tischi]

We still very often say Source where it is a SourceAndConverter:

I would be in favour of changing this to always saying SourceAndConverter or Sac, because otherwise one always needs to look into the code to see what it actually is.

However

1. SourceAndConverter is quite a bit longer than Source, and
2. @tpietzsch in bdv-core also often says Source instead of SourceAndConverter

Not sure...

[tischi]

@NicoKiaru

[NicoKiaru]

Let's put SourceAndConverter everywhere. Let's do that when we have managed to merge the manual registration and the projection modes.

[tpietzsch]

@tischi @NicoKiaru In bdv-core, I have to use SourceAndConverter class name because of backwards compatibility. I mostly use source for variable and parameter names, because it's shorter. SourceAndConverter<?> is the canonical "source" object as far as BDV is concerned. Unfortunate class naming but well... Pure (unconverted) Source<?> are never added to the BDV, and a Source always is necessarily associated with a converter.

Following that reasoning, I think in downstream code (vistools etc) it is ok to use "Source" in class names when it is actually a SourceAndConverter. I actually would prefer it that way. It's only worth thinking about, when you actually have a mix of Source and SourceAndConverter in the API. If that is mostly not the case, I would stick with "Source" (and try to hide the Source from public API as much as possible).