Steve (and all), let me try to reply to this. For the full picture about Python and SAGA: - Paul has developed a complete Python language binding that is driven by Python look-and-feel (to the best of our knowledge). This is called PySAGA. This language binding is defining the API in terms of Python classes against which SAGA applications should be coded. - Paul has also implemented a backend to PySAGA, called JySAGA, which maps PySAGA calls to our JavaSAGA implementation (via Jython). - Our friends in Louisiana (Hartmut and co.) have developed a Python wrapper implementation to their C++ SAGA implementation. This Python wrapper is a bit incomplete. Also its design is more driven by exposing the C++/Boost interfaces. - I am currently having another student (Manuel) who is writing glue code that maps PySAGA to the LSU wrapper to the C++ SAGA implementation. For people outside VU Amsterdam and outside LSU, this means, according to a discussion the VUA and LSU folks had: - We anticipate that PySAGA will be iterated through the OGF process to become the official, agreed upon, Python binding for SAGA. - Adaptors should be written for the Java and/or the C++ implementations of SAGA. - Extension packages should be done at the language level (in Java, in C++, in Python and in possibly other languages). For Python, the implementation should simply wrap around Java and/or C++, like with SAGA's core. Regards, Thilo On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 01:34:00PM +0000, Steve Fisher wrote:
From: Steve Fisher <dr.s.m.fisher@gmail.com> To: PFA van Zoolingen <pzn400@few.vu.nl> Cc: SAGA RG <saga-rg@ogf.org> Subject: [SAGA-RG] SAGA Python implementation
Paul,
Concerning
How does this relate to the python bindings implicitly defined by the C++ Python/Boost work at
https://svn.cct.lsu.edu/repos/saga/trunk/bindings/saga/python/
Do you plan a definitive Python SAGA API binding in addition to the Java and C++? Is this idea accepted?
I ask because we are doing the service discovery package. We plan to provide C++, Java and Python implementations. Most of the work is in the adapters which we don't want to have to translate. My current preference is to make any inter-language calls at the adapter level rather than at the top level as this seems to be the only way to build a natural looking API. Are you doing Python adapters as well?
Is their any consensus which way to go?
Steve -- saga-rg mailing list saga-rg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
-- Thilo Kielmann http://www.cs.vu.nl/~kielmann/