[Paraview-developers] Proposed ParaView CVS hierarchy

[Brad King]

Berk Geveci wrote:
> Hullo,
> 
> The current ParaView directory structure does not represent the ParaView
> architecture properly. As it is, all ParaView specific non-GUI and GUI
> classes are contained in the ParaView directory and it is not possible to
> separate the classes specific to client (GUI), client manager (non-GUI) and
> server (non-GUI). Furthermore, we maintain two different CVS trees:
> ParaView and ParaViewComplete. This allows users to build ParaView in so
> many ways that it is very hard to maintain and support. Here is a proposed
> hierarchy:

Okay, here are a few comments:

> ParaView - VTK (link)
>          - Utilities        - Xdmf (link)
>                             - IceT (link)
>                             - hdf5 (link)
>                             - ...
> 
>          - Common           - KWCommon          (link)
>                             - NetworkUtilities  (link)
>                             - ...

These look fine to me.

> 
>          - Servers (link)   - Common
>                             - StreamInterpreter
>                             - ServerManager

Why is Servers a link?  Typo?

>          - TclTk (link)

We may want to convert this over to a full CMake build system instead of 
the current configure/make hackery.

>          - GUI              - Widgets (link)
>                             - Client

This looks fine.  These should be the only directories depending on Tcl/Tk.

>   1. It will be no longer possible to build ParaView separately from VTK
>      (linking against an external VTK).

This could still be configured as an option.  In ITK, we have a built-in 
vnl in the main source tree, but can optinally use one from an external vxl.

>   2. If we name the root directory ParaView, this tree will replace the
>      current ParaView CVS tree and it will not be possible to checkout old
>      versions of ParaView tree separately. To get the old versions, we will
>      have to to checkout ParaViewComplete with a tag.


We could call the top-level checkout "paraview" instead of "ParaView" to 
allow either the old or new trees to be checked out.

-Brad