[SAGA-RG] SAGA python bindings...

[Sylvain Reynaud]

Le 16/08/2011 19:29, Andre Merzky a écrit :
> 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.
Yes indeed.


> 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?
No, I don't.
Julien wrote a few additional tests that are not included in this 
package, but apart from that I think this is the version implemented by 
JPySAGA.


Best regards,
Sylvain


> 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
>>
>
>