On Friday 08 November 2002 06:07 pm, Jason Wood wrote: > On Friday 08 Nov 2002 4:14 pm, Rolf Dubitzky wrote: > > On Friday 08 November 2002 04:37 pm, Christian Berger wrote: > > I know nothing of DCOP, beside it is based on ICE and that it sounds like > > KDE dependece. I would not vote for a KDE or Qt dependent solution. > > I agree about no KDE/QT dependancy, and as far as I can tell, DCOP is > one.It's a shame, because it makes the setting up of the interface > incredibly easy ;-)
Yeah, I agree. It looks really simple.. that's a real pro of KDE/Qt in any respect. Even for DOM/XML. I would love to use QDom. Why can't everybody implement in such a intuitive fashion? Or why can't the trolls make their stuff a little more modular. I can easily use gdk-pixbuf without any other dependence on GNOME, but QPixmap.. no. Take it all or leave it all. ;-( > I am reading up on ORBit at the moment. How complicated is CORBA, though? I'm looking into ORBit right now, too. > The implementation will be completely hidden within the BaseCutter class, > but my concern here is to not scare off people who are unable to use that > class for some reason (for example, Gnome people coding in C). Hmm.. I don't think gnome people would be scared off by ORBit, it's the foundation of GNOME. And when it comes to the BaseCutter class itself. I will not 'use' it (read: inherit it) either. I think of it as the reference implementation of the interface. > I've never heard of that one, more reading ahead, I presume :-) This is what you use when you have MYRINet and want to calculate the weather forecast. We use it for Latice QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamic) simulation. All applications I know are in FORTRAN, but there is a C and C++ implementation, too. I am not sure which licence. I don't think it's widely used in OpenSource, I might be wrong though, I am not an expert. > > > How about pipes or fifos they should be enought for that > > > > Pipes via NFS can be nasty but as a first step it is not better or worse > > than the socket we use now, is it? > > The main concern that I have with sockets is that by being low-level, we > are going to be reinventing the wheel to quite a degree, and that anyone > else who cannot use the BaseCutter class will have to rewrite their own > implementation. That is why I want to offload most of the work out of > BaseCutter into some standard library that already exists. I thought the plan was to pass a plain ASCII XML 'document' via the socket. Both sides can then use their preferred XML parser. QDom for KDE or libxml2 for GNOME... > On the other hand, if this simplicity comes at the cost of high latency or > increased complexity, then it is not going to be a good solution. True. I am not sure if passing ASCII XML documents around is an elegant and efficient solution.. actually, I doubt it ;-) Cheers, Rolf *************************************************************** Rolf Dubitzky e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik.TU-Dresden.de s-mail see http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky/ ***************************************************************
