Quoting [Manuel Franceschini] (Nov 09 2009):
Hi all,
Quick summary from GFD.90: the SAGA I/O Buffer encapsulates a sequence of bytes to be used for I/O operations, e.g. read()/write() on files and streams, and call() on rpc instances. The recent removal of the buffer class from the Python bindings of the C++ SAGA implementation led us to think again about this issue. The GFD is C/C++ oriented
Well, it should not be C/C++ oriented, but the bias of the authors probably shows :-) The intent was to support binary I/O on any language, as that was mentioned in many use cases.
and therefore the Python implementation is all but clear in this regard.
Given that that memory management is automatic in Python, the notion of application-managed and implementation-managed Buffer disappears.
From what I learned during the discussion in Banff, this is not really true: one *can* allocate an array in user space and pass it to an API by-reference, which actually makes it a application managed memory segment. The point in python seems to be that nobody is doing that...
There is no need for a Python SAGA user to tell the bindings who manages the Buffer, since it is managed by the underlying Python VM.
Another more critical issue is the data type used to hold binary data in Python. In Python 2.x the immutable 'str' type is used whereas Python 3.x has a newly introduced immutable 'bytes' type. Let's forget about 3.x for a moment, since 2.x will be around for at least a couple of more years. In order to manipulate large binary datasets, the mmap class [0] could be used, which basically transforms a immutable 'str' into a mutable mmap object. In other words it provides the ability to efficiently modify binary data.
In the VU Python bindings the buffer class is still present, while, as previously said, in the C++ Python bindings it was removed recently. I do not see any issues with the removal of the Buffer class in the Python bindings. However, I'm not sure whether I am forgetting some corner cases (e.g. async) that would require a dedicated Buffer class. When removing the Buffer class, the user would simply deal with 'str' type data to pass data back and forth to a SAGA file, stream or rpc.
If the bindings decide to go for strings, then that should pose no problem for the async calls, as far as I can tell: semantics of sync and async calls is identical (apart from synchronization obviously).
Now, I identified the following crucial questions: 1) Can the Buffer class be safely removed from the Python bindings?
According to the original SAGA use cases: no According to current SAGA users: yes So, tough call ;-)
2) Is handling of large binary datasets a primary concern? If yes, how to handle them?
See above. How to handle: dunno - that is the question, innit?
3) Is compliance to Python 3.x a concern right now? In other words, is the eventual migration to 3.x to take into consideration?
If 3.x makes something easier, it might be good to be aware of it at least. I think all agree that 2.x will be around for a long time, and that limiting the bindings to 3.x is not an option. OTOH, it should be possible to have slightly differing bindings for 2.x and 3.x, depending on the changes in the language itself. One proposal which came up a couple of times, and which I find appealing, is to have support for strings (simple, solves many use cases, pythonesque), and to add binary buffers for python-3.x (natively supported, covers the remaining use cases, stays close to spec). Personally, I don't see the need for jumping through hoops for python-2.x. Cheers, Andre.
Cheers, /Manuel
[0] http://docs.python.org/library/mmap.html -- Nothing is ever easy.