Hi all, one of our discussion topics for next OGF is (again) the evolution of the SAGA python bindings. To give some context of the current discussions, I forward the below email thread between the jSAGA group and the SAGA-C++ group, for your interest and input. Best, Andre. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: M.A. Santcroos <m.a.santcroos@amc.uva.nl> Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:02 AM Subject: Re: SAGA python bindings... To: Sylvain Reynaud <Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr>, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> Cc: Julien Devemy <julien.devemy@in2p3.fr> Hi all, I waited a bit with responding, assuming that Julien is back now :-) A short intro about myself, I'm working on grid related things at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Because of our presence in Netherlands/Europe we are mainly interested in gLite. Since a couple of months I've been working closely with the SAGA-C++ group (and now also formally a part of that). At the AMC we've (of course) always been interested in programmatic access to the Grid middleware, and have found that spread over multiple packages. We've used some of the Python/Java APIs provided with gLite, and we have quite some usage of the VLET API (Java). As the VLET is nowhere near a standard, we have interest in moving to SAGA. Some comments in line below. On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud" <Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote:
Yes, JPySAGA implements the same python binding as JySAGA (the python wrapper on top JavaSAGA), but as far as I remember Julien also made a few compatibility tests with the wrapper that implements this binding on top of SAGA-C++. We were not able to get everything working because this wrapper was still under development, but we were at least able to implement the simple use-cases that we shown in our demo at Brussels last year, in order to show that SAGA-C++ and JSAGA could be used together in the same application.
One of the issues in the JPySAGA is the usage of the "create" class methods. Do you know the history of that? It feels very un-pythonic, and is also different than the SAGA-C++ Python bindings.
Either way, as we do have a significant community of python users for SAGA, we are still interested in driving a uniform python bindings forward. Would you be interested in discussing that topic again, or is that at the moment out of scope for your group?
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.
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. Regards, Mark -- Nothing is ever easy...
Le 15/08/2011 12:35, Andre Merzky a écrit :
Hi all,
one of our discussion topics for next OGF is (again) the evolution of the SAGA python bindings. To give some context of the current discussions, I forward the below email thread between the jSAGA group and the SAGA-C++ group, for your interest and input.
Best, Andre.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: M.A. Santcroos<m.a.santcroos@amc.uva.nl> Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:02 AM Subject: Re: SAGA python bindings... To: Sylvain Reynaud<Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr>, Andre Merzky<andre@merzky.net> Cc: Julien Devemy<julien.devemy@in2p3.fr>
Hi all, Hi all,
I waited a bit with responding, assuming that Julien is back now :-) Sorry, I was wrong about his holidays dates ; we will have to wait 10 days more before he will be back.
A short intro about myself, I'm working on grid related things at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Because of our presence in Netherlands/Europe we are mainly interested in gLite. Since a couple of months I've been working closely with the SAGA-C++ group (and now also formally a part of that).
At the AMC we've (of course) always been interested in programmatic access to the Grid middleware, and have found that spread over multiple packages. We've used some of the Python/Java APIs provided with gLite, and we have quite some usage of the VLET API (Java). As the VLET is nowhere near a standard, we have interest in moving to SAGA.
Some comments in line below.
On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote:
Yes, JPySAGA implements the same python binding as JySAGA (the python wrapper on top JavaSAGA), but as far as I remember Julien also made a few compatibility tests with the wrapper that implements this binding on top of SAGA-C++. We were not able to get everything working because this wrapper was still under development, but we were at least able to implement the simple use-cases that we shown in our demo at Brussels last year, in order to show that SAGA-C++ and JSAGA could be used together in the same application. One of the issues in the JPySAGA is the usage of the "create" class methods. Do you know the history of that? No, I don't know the history, but since JySAGA has been developed on top of JavaSAGA, I can imagine that it was influenced by the "create" methods of the Java binding.
It feels very un-pythonic, and is also different than the SAGA-C++ Python bindings.
Either way, as we do have a significant community of python users for SAGA, we are still interested in driving a uniform python bindings forward. Would you be interested in discussing that topic again, or is that at the moment out of scope for your group? 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) ?
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
Hi Sylvain, On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sylvain Reynaud <Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote:
On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote:
Yes, JPySAGA implements the same python binding as JySAGA (the python wrapper on top JavaSAGA), but as far as I remember Julien also made a few compatibility tests with the wrapper that implements this binding on top of SAGA-C++. We were not able to get everything working because this wrapper was still under development, but we were at least able to implement the simple use-cases that we shown in our demo at Brussels last year, in order to show that SAGA-C++ and JSAGA could be used together in the same application.
One of the issues in the JPySAGA is the usage of the "create" class methods. Do you know the history of that?
No, I don't know the history, but since JySAGA has been developed on top of JavaSAGA, I can imagine that it was influenced by the "create" methods of the Java binding.
I Cc'ed Steve Fisher, who kept better track of the python API evolution than most I think - he might be able to shed light on this.
Either way, as we do have a significant community of python users for SAGA, we are still interested in driving a uniform python bindings forward. Would you be interested in discussing that topic again, or is that at the moment out of scope for your group?
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... ;-) 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. 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...
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@in2p3.fr> wrote:
On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote:
Yes, JPySAGA implements the same python binding as JySAGA (the python wrapper on top JavaSAGA), but as far as I remember Julien also made a few compatibility tests with the wrapper that implements this binding on top of SAGA-C++. We were not able to get everything working because this wrapper was still under development, but we were at least able to implement the simple use-cases that we shown in our demo at Brussels last year, in order to show that SAGA-C++ and JSAGA could be used together in the same application.
One of the issues in the JPySAGA is the usage of the "create" class methods. Do you know the history of that?
No, I don't know the history, but since JySAGA has been developed on top of JavaSAGA, I can imagine that it was influenced by the "create" methods of the Java binding.
I Cc'ed Steve Fisher, who kept better track of the python API evolution than most I think - he might be able to shed light on this.
Either way, as we do have a significant community of python users for SAGA, we are still interested in driving a uniform python bindings forward. Would you be interested in discussing that topic again, or is that at the moment out of scope for your group?
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.
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. 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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ole Weidner <oweidner@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@in2p3.fr> wrote:
On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud@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. 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? 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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
-- Nothing is ever easy...
Hi, On 8/16/11 19:29 , "Andre Merzky" <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
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.
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.
The latest JPySAGA release includes a copy of the PySAGA spec that's generated on 9th April 2010, so this is most likely the most recent there is. (The SVN repo is also quiet for a year now) It would be good to find out the actual reason for using these create() constructs. Gr, Mark
Hi Mark, Sylvain, as you both seem to agree that the April'10 JPySAGA/PySAGA release is the latest, guess we start from this one. One of the things we received from the VU before they went Missing In Action was a comparison between the VU and the LSU bindings. I attach that here for reference. Ole, I generated the python-doc for that release, and saved them on cyder into ~amerzky/html.tgz - could you put that up on our webspace somewhere, temporarily? Cheers, Andre. On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, M.A. Santcroos <m.a.santcroos@amc.uva.nl> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/16/11 19:29 , "Andre Merzky" <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
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.
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.
The latest JPySAGA release includes a copy of the PySAGA spec that's generated on 9th April 2010, so this is most likely the most recent there is. (The SVN repo is also quiet for a year now)
It would be good to find out the actual reason for using these create() constructs.
Gr,
Mark
-- Nothing is ever easy...
All, here's the PySAGA API documentation generated by Andre: http://apidoc.saga.cct.lsu.edu/saga-python-alt/ Cheers, Ole On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Mark, Sylvain,
as you both seem to agree that the April'10 JPySAGA/PySAGA release is the latest, guess we start from this one.
One of the things we received from the VU before they went Missing In Action was a comparison between the VU and the LSU bindings. I attach that here for reference.
Ole, I generated the python-doc for that release, and saved them on cyder into ~amerzky/html.tgz - could you put that up on our webspace somewhere, temporarily?
Cheers, Andre.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, M.A. Santcroos <m.a.santcroos@amc.uva.nl> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/16/11 19:29 , "Andre Merzky" <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
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.
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.
The latest JPySAGA release includes a copy of the PySAGA spec that's generated on 9th April 2010, so this is most likely the most recent there is. (The SVN repo is also quiet for a year now)
It would be good to find out the actual reason for using these create() constructs.
Gr,
Mark
-- Nothing is ever easy... <vulsudiff2.txt>
Thanks Ole! :-) FWIW, the python-doc for the LSU bindings are at http://apidoc.saga.cct.lsu.edu/saga-python/0.9.0/ Cheers, Andre. On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Ole Weidner <oweidner@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
All, here's the PySAGA API documentation generated by Andre: http://apidoc.saga.cct.lsu.edu/saga-python-alt/ Cheers, Ole On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Mark, Sylvain,
as you both seem to agree that the April'10 JPySAGA/PySAGA release is the latest, guess we start from this one.
One of the things we received from the VU before they went Missing In Action was a comparison between the VU and the LSU bindings. I attach that here for reference.
Ole, I generated the python-doc for that release, and saved them on cyder into ~amerzky/html.tgz - could you put that up on our webspace somewhere, temporarily?
Cheers, Andre.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM, M.A. Santcroos <m.a.santcroos@amc.uva.nl> wrote:
Hi,
On 8/16/11 19:29 , "Andre Merzky" <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
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.
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.
The latest JPySAGA release includes a copy of the PySAGA spec that's
generated on 9th April 2010, so this is most likely the most recent there
is.
(The SVN repo is also quiet for a year now)
It would be good to find out the actual reason for using these create()
constructs.
Gr,
Mark
-- Nothing is ever easy... <vulsudiff2.txt>
-- Nothing is ever easy...
Le 16/08/2011 19:29, Andre Merzky a écrit :
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Ole Weidner<oweidner@cct.lsu.edu> wrote:
All,
On Aug 16, 2011, at 5:58 AM, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi Sylvain,
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
On 8/8/11 11:20 , "Sylvain Reynaud"<Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote: 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
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Sylvain Reynaud <Sylvain.Reynaud@in2p3.fr> wrote: 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@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
participants (4)
-
Andre Merzky -
M.A. Santcroos -
Ole Weidner -
Sylvain Reynaud