[Pipet Devel] 3/1 and 1/3

Gary Van Domselaar gvd at redpoll.pharmacy.ualberta.ca
Sat Mar 25 15:21:30 EST 2000

"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

> > 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.


                                  Gary Van Domselaar
                               gary at bioinformatics.org
                           bioinformatics.org: The Open Lab

More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list