[Paraview] build error with boost and additional questions

[Utkarsh Ayachit]

This is odd. I just tried the same with a server built without VisIt
bridge and a client with VisitBridge and tried to load a bov file and
ParaView nicely told me to pick the reader to use since it could not
decide which one to use.

Utkarsh

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Chourasia, Amit <amit at sdsc.edu> wrote:
> This was the error reported when I loaded a .bov file
>
> Connection URL: cs://gcn-13-47.sdsc.edu:11111
> Accepting connection(s): gcn-13-47.sdsc.edu:11111
> Client connected.
> ERROR: In /oasis/scratch/amit/temp_project/ParaView-3.14.0-Source/ParaViewCore/ServerImplementation/vtkSIProxyDefinitionManager.cxx, line 543
> vtkSIProxyDefinitionManager (0x753c60): No proxy that matches: group=sources and proxy=VisItBOVReader were found.
>
> ERROR: In /oasis/scratch/amit/temp_project/ParaView-3.14.0-Source/ParaViewCore/ServerImplementation/vtkSIProxy.cxx, line 292
> vtkSISourceProxy (0xab9000): Definition not found for xml_group: sources and xml_name: VisItBOVReader
> global_id: 3404
> location: 2
>
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
>
>> What version of ParaView was this?
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chourasia, Amit <amit at sdsc.edu> wrote:
>>> My server side Paraview build was built without visit bridge.
>>> On client side I used binaries for OS X 64 bit
>>> I established a cs session and when I tired to open a .bov file both client and server crashed.
>>> Utkarsh this behaviour seems buggy as per your explanation.
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If we don't explicitly enable the bridge on the server side, and user is
>>>>> making use of client from the KW binaries, will it crash if a file type
>>>>> associated to the bridge is opened?
>>>>
>>>> No it won't, starting 3.14. With 3.14 the client fetches the list of
>>>> available proxies from the server, so if the server doesn't have the
>>>> VisIt bridge enabled, the readers simply won't be available for the
>>>> client.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> do you think that the PV binaries c/should be built with the default build
>>>>> options, to reduce incompatibilities? but also maybe to improve the cmake
>>>>> coverage?
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying the default cmake
>>>> values should be the ones that we use to build PV binaries? I think
>>>> the superbuild proposal will address this issue. Using the superbuild
>>>> it would be easier to build binaries using similar settings.
>>>>
>>>> Utkarsh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>
>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>
>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
>>>
>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview