Dear all, Andre asked me to provide some more detailed information prior to the meeting in Lyon, so here goes. Attached you will find two files, one of them is the python example from the LSU Python bindings [1]. The other file is the diff that is needed to make the same simple example run with JPySAGA, which implements the API as defined by VU for their Pysaga implementation [2]. I also did a review of the comparison done in the past, and that still seems to be valid. For reference I've also attached it. The code diff and the snippet below gives some intuition of the differences. =============== File ---- VU module:filesystem, class:File LSU module:filesystem._filesystem,class:file Job --- VU module:job, class:Job LSU module:job._job, class:job JobDescription -------------- VU module:job, class:JobDescription LSU module:job._job, class:description JobService ---------- VU module:job, class:JobService LSU module:job._job, class:service Exception --------- VU module:error, class:SagaException LSU module:saga, class:exception ============== On overall we can summarize that the LSU bindings have C++ style names and the VU bindings have Python style names. The VU bindings have create() calls for explicit constructors (not sure why). Both implementations make extensive use of getters and setters which are discouraged in Python. The VU package structure seems to be closer to the spec. The LSU bindings use "fork://" for localhost execution and the VU bindings use "local://". The VU bindings need RMs to be of type URL only, LSU accepts strings too. To conclude, the list of little differences continues for ever. See the file vulsudiff.txt for an extensive overview. Ideally, the bindings should become Python-like: - CamelCase for classes - lowercase_underscores for members - No getters and setters - No explicit create() constructors Given this list, neither of the two implementations apply to these requirements as is. How to go forward? Functionally they don't seem to differ much, so that's not a deal breaker. The LSU bindings have most probably a larger user community, that could be an argument in favor of LSU. Another option would be that we could go out and define a third set of bindings with the best elements of both implementations, not sure if that would just make the situation worse. I hope this gives some structure to the discussion. Regards, Mark 1. http://apidoc.saga.cct.lsu.edu/saga-python/latest/ 2. http://apidoc.saga.cct.lsu.edu/saga-python-alt/