Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > That's no problem... Overflow is built in a very modular way. All the > functionality is built into nodes (C++ classes). If you don't like some of them, > you just don't use them, but they don't interfere. If you "rm" a library you > don't want, things will still work (without recompiling). The same for the > Overflow types (like neural nets, vector quantizers, ...). As for supporting > VSH, every new feature will simply be a new node in Overflow. Very nice. > About the architecture... what about this: Everything that's done locally > (including running other exceutables) is handled by Overflow and all networking > stuff would be handled by GMS, which would take care of connecting all Overflow > processes (here I'm talking about "process" in a weak sense) through a network. > This way there wouldn't be any duplication. Also, every node-to-node connection > in the GMS part of the GUI would be assumed to be "network-able". This is EXACTLY what I was thinking of. Brad and Jarl, is this not what you guys were thinking? > Concerning the GUI, I don't think it would be hard to plug in what we've got so > far in another app. Or we can just embed the current GUI in the new app using > bonobo. I don't know enough about this to say which is best. I don't dislike Overflow's GUI. I just believe GMS and Overflow should have GUIs that work alike. Plus, we've come up with some very nice GUI features for Loci that I'd like to see VSH have. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+