[Biocorba-l] BSANE and bioCORBA

[Juha Muilu]

Hi Brad,
Thanks very much for your comments! Good points! I noticed that Martin
has already replied, so I will follow-up from there.

I see it also as a bad thing to take in something from the Cos* stuff.
Some of those services may be already outdated. I wish I know more about
the CORBA Component Model. The Life cycle issue for example is solved
there as well? Can somebody comment on this?


Brad Chapman wrote:
> 
> Hey all;
> 
> Juha:
> > We must really start to work more to get the BSA/BSANE and bioCORBA
> > threads to merge.
> 
> You've all got my agreement -- it would definately be nice to have one
> spec; I'm glad you brought this forward, Juha.
> 
> Mostly I trust you all to hash over the details -- most of what you've
> said so far is sensible (or I was not smart enough to know what you
> were talking about :-). Some specific comments on things are below.
> 
> Ewan:
> > Jason/Brad - you should dig in before we sign ourselves up for something
> > we don't particularly like!
> 
> Okay :-). BTW, for those who don't know, I'll be coming at all of this
> from a Python perspective.
> 
> Ewan:
> >    I need to revisit CosPropertyService and CosLifeCycle - if I remember
> > right they make life a pain in the arse for implementors - I prefer the
> > GNOME reference counting system and just a short a simple key - list-value
> > system as in BioCorba.
> 
> I am definately on Ewan's side here -- I *really* don't want to have
> to implement these services in python just to do my biology-related
> work. Also, since we are only pulling out small bits of these
> specifications, I think we lose in clarity what we gain in "standards
> conformity." Personally, I'd much rather have something simple that we
> just encompass in a single IDL -- so far CORBA itself scares away
> enough people, no sense in making it even more complicated.
> 
> Juha:
> > Perhaps we should use the iterator/list pattern used in the BSA. It is
> > actually quite good!
> 
> I agree that the single Iterator object with the next_n() function is
> an improvement of the separate Vector/Iterator objects that BioCorba
> already has. I'd like to see this change
> 
> The implementation does feel a bit awkward to me. Right now it uses
> an out parameter to return the object from the iterator, and uses a
> boolean return value to specify whether the object was returned or
> not. I greatly prefer the current BioCORBA model where the return
> value is the object, and the call raises an EndOfStream exception if
> it is out of objects. Maybe this is a dumb implementation detail, but
> the boolean return parameter really caught me off guard when I was
> reading it.
> 
> In general, I'm happy to see us getting something coming together!
> Thanks again for Juha for bringing this forward, and having IDLs for
> us to look at.
> 
> Still-too-dumb-to-understand-UML-ly y'rs,
> Brad
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Biocorba-l mailing list
> Biocorba-l@biocorba.org
> http://www.biocorba.org/mailman/listinfo/biocorba-l

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |Juha Muilu, Ph.D., EMBL Outstation| Email:  muilu@ebi.ac.uk         |
 |European Bioinformatics Institute | Phone:  +44 (0)1223 494 624     |
 |Wellcome Trust Genome Campus      | Fax:    +44 (0)1223 494 468     |
 |Hinxton, Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK   | http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~muilu|
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+