> is that your program would have to be written in "two different languages": one > GMS part, and one Overflow part, while I think it would be feasable to put the > GMS code (not rewrite it) into Overflow. Now, maybe the best thing would be to > do both: Adapt Overflow so that it can be used as a GMS node, but also add > network stuff to Overflow. The kind of task you want to perform will then tell > you which to use. > This will be a slow process if you wanna do it right. Overflow & gms both want to lose functionality; lets slowly build toward whatever will turn out to be best. All we need to deside is if we want to build something together and need to tie up some ends at first, or if this is somehow impossible. It looks to me that everybody wants to do the 1st, (like Jeffs diagram), so lets give it a try and evaluate after we got a pilot. Right now just to translating projects into the other looks practically impossible to me. > True, my concern with speed was only that Overflow nodes could not be put in GMS > individually, but that's probably obvious to everybody. Sorry, I guess I have > not expresed myself correctly on speed. OK, so Jean, what do you think about Jeffs diagram? > I'm afraid we might need two GUIs (though they might be bonobized to look like > one), because GMS and Overflow will probably have different requirements. This > is what I'd find annoying in wrapping Overflow in GMS. I might be wrong on that > though... No, gms\overflow will figure out how does what, the gui just has 1 set of functions. > > About Overflow integration in GMS... I'd like to point out that, except for the > GUI, Overflow is more a library than a program. It is easy to integrate into any > program. I'd like to know, is GMS build a bit the same? The core uses corba, the plugins are libraries. > OK, so this summerized my thoughts: > 1) I don't mind if Overflow is integrated in GMS (mainly it's not a lot of work) > and I can help those who want to do it (It would probably be as simple as > writing a couple new nodes). > 2) I would like to try the opposite so for most simple "networked applications", > just Overflow would be fine. OK, fine to me > > As a last, about communicating objects between different parts, Overflow already > has an Object hierarchy (GTK-like, but cleaner) that supports > serialization/de-serialization, so most of the stuff would already be done. Does > GMS has something like that (in which case, we'd need to have compatibility > between the two)? Can you explain more about what you're aiming at? At how nodes are related?