[GRASS-dev] GRASS-TNG

[Radek Bartoň]

On Thursday 22 of February 2007 00:19:14 tlaronde at polynum.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:27:48PM +0100, Radek Barto? wrote:

> I'm more than 18 years old, so commercial hype doesn't impress me the
> least. KerGIS is object oriented when that does make sense (see
> libcorr). But it does not use C++ for reasons already stated by Frank W.

All right, it's at least "virtually" object oriented. I didn't know that since 
I didn't look on KerGIS so close. Maybe I should.

> It is component oriented: what do you think libraries are? What do you
> think the reorganization of the whole source in an orthogonal base is?
>
> > It is independend in mean that its program itself.
>
> I simply don't understand what you are trying to say.
>
> Yes, it's a standalone package, depending on nothing except a POSIX
> environment and, for display, X11.
>
> It's one of its strengths.

Just that I wan't to say. It's not a strong argument but it's a difference 
between these two project. I didn't mean any of my statements as a 
blame of KerGIS. I hope that it has its own place in open-sorce world. I just 
argumented that KerGIS is not way I want to go.

> > It is not a proove of concept or some kind of research how to improve
> > GRASS itself.
>
> ??? How do you define "research"? Negatively: not actual code or result?
>
> It's an improvement over the actual code base of GPL GRASS. It is a
> "research" project because it leads to many open questions.
>
> If "research" means---this is unfortunately the same in France---some
> vague pretext to lead to nothing actual so that nobody can judge the
> result, no: KerGIS is not research.  It's useful and used.

By "research" I mean that ther result  don't need to be complete GIS package.
It could be just model of GIS with simple prototype and a few examples of 
module implementation which can be turned into GRASS of forgotten depending 
on it's quality.

> If you really want a research project, there are numerous ones that are
> really open in the field, with no correct or practical solution, take
> all the graph problems for example.
>
> If you want to give useful results, data, for example with threading,
> there is a lot to do (just to have numbers about what are the great
> gains, and what are a lot of headache for little gain):
>
> 1) With multiprocessor, the simplest with actual kernels is distributing
> distinct processes on distinct CPUs on multi-CPU systems. No thread
> here, but using tiling will allow to launch processes in parallel on
> each tile. What is "tilable", what is the gain ?
>
> 2) When threading is enable, take a data treatment (not a GUI) and
> implement threads. What are the gains on N:1, 1:1, N:M with SA, without
> SA etc (since threads are still an open problem and thread
> implementations are still young this is an open problem; and not an easy
> one; and not a priority for GRASS: cleaning and orthogonalizing will
> allow someday to benefit, for some parts, of threading; not now);
>
> etc.

Yes, these are cetainly very interesting questions but I want to deal with 
questions which interest me more and that is in this case system modelling of 
GIS. I have to follow interests of my garant too.

>
> At the moment I do not understand what you are aiming for except that
> logically:
>
> 1) if your work is related to GRASS, you can not think about the
> organization of the upper layer without knowing first the lower ones
> (for now your documentation is just paraphrasing programming with
> components; this is all well-known, generic, and has nothing to do with
> the pecularities of GRASS). The problem is not how the upper layers
> should be organized. The problem is to reorganize the lower layers so
> that the upper layers are simpler.

And why is not top-down method possible? Why don't just look at whole system 
as a module developer with its needs of simplicity and then go deeper and 
deeper until whole system get a shape and until it mees a GRASS core 
libraries for example?

I know that every skilled programmer know about that what I write there. But 
not everybody knows that as I may noticed recently. It's only start of that 
top-down desing so later there should be more details involved by discussion 
and need of other people. I have certain ides how to do even more detailed 
things but I needs time to write up they there and put them throught dispute.

> 2) if you can design your project without having to refer to or know
> GRASS, I don't understand why GRASS even comes in the figure.
>
> Please note that I haven't used the term GRASS in the name of my project
> to avoid confusion with GPL GRASS, while it is a fork of CERL GRASS so
> it could have had some legitimity.
>
> Even if it's none of my business, the use of GRASS (historically, now,
> associated with GPL GRASS) and the GRASS logo, is holdup'ing a filiation
> that is not legitimate.
>
> Secondly, calling this: GRASS-TNG (I suspect: The New Generation) and
> having as a goal not to do anything real, but explaining to others how
> they should work is something that I would be unlikely to appreciate
> (the tone of my mail should make this clear).

If there is a problem calling this project GRASS-TNG (legal or moral) I'm 
sorry and I'll change a name but I'd like to hear this from someone how can 
trully say that (Markus? or maybe you?). This name wasn't purely just my idea 
and name does not matter. This kind of project can live even without any name 
since there are no commertial interests.

> I have been rude with GPL GRASS developers from time to time, but at
> least I have never said that I will only "think" and come back with
> bright ideas: I said I will try another way. And I have done (still
> following GPL GRASS development because I have not the monopoly of good
> ideas, and because I do my share of mistakes; but because I _work_).

I don't think that I have monopoly or patent of ideas. I just want to whirl up 
discussion about them and do something about that (write them up not just 
talk about them).

> Just prove me that I'm wrong and that something useful can come out of
> this buzz.

Is it enough to you or should I make myself clearer? :-)

-- 
Bc. Radek Bartoň

Faculty of Information Technology
Brno University of Technology

E-mail: xbarto33 at stud.fit.vutbr.cz
Web: http://blackhex.no-ip.org
Jabber: blackhex at jabber.cz