[Paraview-developers] Proposed ParaView CVS hierarchy

[Wylie, Brian]

The new hierarchy seems fine to me, what I don't quite understand is why the
insistence that people recompiled another version of VTK for ParaView. 

People are either going to be end users, in which case they want to just
download binaries. Or people are developers and they already have VTK
sitting around (for their own VTK project development) and just want to
'link' ParaView to that.

My preference is not have a paraview-complete and just have a paraview that
'links' to a certain version of VTK.

I'm sure there are good arguments the other way, and perhaps it makes more
sense. So I'd like to hear the flip side.

	Brian Wylie
	Sandia National Laboratories
	MS 0822 - Org 9227 - Building 880/A1-J
     (505) 844-2238   FAX (505) 845-0833


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad King [mailto:brad.king at kitware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:25 PM
> To: Berk Geveci
> Cc: ParaView Developers
> Subject: Re: [Paraview-developers] Proposed ParaView CVS hierarchy
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Paraview-developers mailing list
> Paraview-developers at paraview.org
> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/paraview-developers
>