[Pipet Devel] BL->PL design

[Jean-Marc Valin]

> >  JM offered to write a document about the design us
> >  two are happy about.
> 
> I would *very* much like to see this. Right now I am really lost as to
> where Piper is going next and what stuff we should be coding on.

Oops.. perhaps I got misunderstood... I don't really have time for that... at
least not until I come back from Chicago (Cpeech Coding Workshop... not
everybody is doing bioinformatics :-) ) on the 20th. 

> 
> >  <jarl> I meant to say was if the DL add this extra node into the xml
> >  description?
> 
> I'm not exactly sure if this is what you guys were talking about here,
> but right now the XML description that the DL outputs should be
> immediately runnable by the PL. Recently I wrapped the UIDocument::run()
> function and ran a couple of XML descriptions produced by the DL through
> this and they ran without problems. This is definately not perfect, but
> should work for most cases.

What Jarl means is that when we break up a network in parts, all the inputs that
are not connected anymore will have to be connected a a special node that will
ask for the input to the BL. What he asked was: sould the DL add this node
before passing the sub-network to the PL of is it somebody else's job. (This is
not a major issue right now... and we'll figure that out later)

> 
> >  <jm> A node address will be like "machine:BabyBL ID:node pointer"
> >  <jarl> maybe we could use some sort of number system that's used Piper
> >  wide that defines locations of nodes\dl's\etc?
> 
> I'd be really interested to hear what we are going to do for this point.
> Right now we've got a numbering system for the dl2bl communication (which
> Jarl talked about in the IRC) but I don't know if this is completely
> compatible with what Jean-Marc wants needs. In my mind it would be very
> useful to create a standard representation of a node that we could use
> throughout Piper and that could be serialized and unserialized by all of
> the different parts. Since my last IRC conversation with Jean-Marc I've
> been thinking a lot about this and how important it is to have a way to
> pass these nodes around between the different parts. I don't know if I
> really know the best way to do this, but I thought I would throw it out
> to see if anyone has any suggestions/thoughts on it....

I think Jarl's numbering scheme is roughly the same as what I am suggesting, but
all with numbers. I think we agree on the principle of a uniform address scheme.

	Jean-Marc

-- 
Jean-Marc Valin
Universite de Sherbrooke - Genie Electrique
valj01 at gel.usherb.ca