[SAGA-RG] SAGA python bindings...

[Andre Merzky]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ole Weidner <oweidner at cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
> All,
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:58 AM, Andre Merzky wrote:
>
>> Hi Sylvain,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sylvain Reynaud
>> <Sylvain.Reynaud at in2p3.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud at in2p3.fr>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we are still very interested in discussing that topic.
>>>>> I put in CC Julien (in holidays this week) because he has developed
>>>>> JPySAGA and he knows Python far better than I do.
>>>>
>>>> Good. As said, we are interested particularly in JSAGA because of gLite
>>>> support.
>>>> Our language choices are Java and Python, so I already proposed to assist
>>>> in sorting out the python differences between the various implementations.
>>>
>>> I know that Julien is also very concerned with having "pythonic" APIs, and I
>>> think he would be probably interested in contributing to select the most
>>> "pythonic" parts of each SAGA Python binding, in order to converge on a SAGA
>>> binding as "pythonic" as possible.
>>>
>>> Andre, do you think this would be the right way to synchronize the
>>> implementations, or is it already too late to do such changes in the binding
>>> (considering the existing SAGA-python users community) ?
>>
>> Honestly, our group has mixed feelings.  Of course it would be nice if
>> the python bindings were unified, but we are also somewhat scared of
>> breaking code which is in heavy use already, since years.  It would have
>> been much better to sync the python bindings way earlier - but well,
>> that is just wishful thinking... ;-)
>
> We can always create an alternative set of Python bindings for our
> SAGA implementation (i.e., forking the current python bindings &
> change the API). Changing the existing API is not an option due
> to strong application dependencies.
>
> Developing an alternative set of Python bindings would only require
> minimal effort on our side. Once we have reached that point, we can
> still think about a gentle, non-intrusive migration strategy.

+1


>> If we find reasonable technical procedures to mitigate the transition
>> pain for our end users, we would certainly be willing to migrate to
>> a common binding.  The biggest motivation for us would be if (a) our
>> users could seamlessly experiment with other SAGA implementations, and
>> (b) we could that way increase the acceptance of SAGA as a standardized
>> and widely available solution, and thus increase adoption in general.
>>
>>
>> My $0.02, I'd love to hear other people's opinion on that topic
>> (Ole?  Shantenu?).
>>
>>
>> BTW, in terms of group procedure: we already came to a consensus about
>> what python bindings are to be standardized as OGF specification.
>
> Andre, could you send around a link to that document, please? If
> all parties can agree with the binding specification, I'd say we
> should just go with it. If not, I think it would be worth it to
> have another iteration.

I checked the respective mail threads, and the last agreement was to
adopt the VU Python Bindings.  If I am reading Sylvain's mail correctly,
those are the ones used by his group, so the complains about being
non-pythonic (factory style) apply.

I do not really know where to find their latest version, google only
came up with http://gforge.cs.vu.nl/gf/project/pysaga/ (amongst a lot
of noise) - the file section there lists a release from April 2010.

I'm afraid that paragraph alone says a lot about our affairs :-(

Sylvain, do you have any more up-to-date pointers?

Best, Andre.


> My $0.02.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
>>  From
>> this thread, and some offline discussions, it seems that the opinions
>> though vary on that topic.  We can certainly re-iterate the python bindings
>> on that level, but I would hate to see us spending another year on it.
>>
>> Since most interested parties are in Lyon, I'll try to book another set
>> of sessions, so that we can come to a closure on the specification side,
>> and can focus on the technical aspects, if that's ok with everybody...
>>
>> Best, Andre.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> PS.: you are likely aware thet OGF-33 is being held n Lyon, in mid
>>>>>> September.  Do you plan to attend, by any chance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am already registered. I really have no excuse for not doing the
>>>>> "travel" since I can see the place of the conference through the window
>>>>> of my desktop!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Note that I will also be in Lyon, so I would be happy to meet up with you.
>>>
>>> I will be happy too.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nothing is ever easy...
>> --
>>  saga-rg mailing list
>>  saga-rg at ogf.org
>>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
>
>



-- 
Nothing is ever easy...