[Pipet Devel] 3/1 and 1/3

[Gary Van Domselaar]

"J.W. Bizzaro" wrote:

> > 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?

I'll add my $cdn 0.02 here.  This seems like the most sensible solution.
Integrating Overflow and GMS this way allows the data to flow
transparently, >and< preserves Overflow's speed-optimized data flow
protocol.

> 
> > 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.

I agree.  From the user's perspective, both GMS and Overflow behave
alike; they should a common interface.  That way, the end user need not
be aware of which 'engine' is behind the interface, which is the way is
should be.


Regards,

g.
-- 
                                  Gary Van Domselaar
                               gary at bioinformatics.org
                          http://www.bioinformatics.org/~gary
                ----------------------------------------------------
                           bioinformatics.org: The Open Lab
                            http://www.bioinformatics.org/