Justin Bradford wrote: > > That's a good point. We haven't considered slow networks or very large files. > > I have, and that's my problem with > 1) how Paos passes objects -- it sends the whole thing. I would prefer > just sending updates. Breaking up the data into linked objects could be > an adequate compromise. > 2) the independently roaming object concept where it's passed directly > from tool to tool. Without a "home" everything has to be passed, and by > the end of a complex series, that could be a large object. I think the confusion lies in thinking that the XML file is physically passed. In reality, it would reside in the local filesystem while loci read/write from/to the file. But this is not to mention "passing" across filesystems or the Internet. > This interface method requires a home location where the object resides > throughout its processing life-time. This is what I had envisioned the > work flow system to be (ie. coordinating it's various objects, where > and when they connected, etc). This could be located on the client > machine, and it allows the various other loci to be really dumb (which > means small). I agree that this big blob of a data object should reside on the local filesystem. IOW, you're right. What would be involved in making such a system? Does it include PAOS, or are you thinking of making something from scratch? :-) Jeff -- J.W. Bizzaro mailto:bizzaro at bc.edu Boston College Chemistry http://www.uml.edu/Dept/Chem/Bizzaro/ --