[ome-devel] Existing client side code in C

[Harry Hochheiser]

Joshua:

This all sounds great to me. As far s the XML-RPC/SOAP discussion, i'd 
love to hear your thoughts on that topic. Perhaps we should do that 
off-list, so as to not swamp others with arcane details..

As far  as the C bindings and JOGL goes, i have a couple of thoughts. 
It seems pretty clear that we're making a significant commitment to 
Java. I'm always reluctant to suggest to somebody else that they port 
code to JOGL, but JOGL is such a thin layer and so close to OpenGL that 
it shouldn't be too painful.

having looked into JOGL earlier this year, I'm a little bit concerned 
that it may not quite be ready for prime-time? i think it will be there 
soon, but maybe not yet.

Can you tell us a bit more about what Tikal does? That might help us 
form opinions about whether it would seem worthwhile to port it to 
Shoola?

-harry

On Aug 10, 2004, at 9:09 AM, Joshua Moore wrote:

> Ok. After a discussion among several of our developers, we'd like to 
> make something of a proposal.
>
> We have a standalone C++ GUI which does various image processing 
> tasks. It's called Tikal, and the folks in Dundee have seen an albeit 
> less-than-perfect demonstration. It is used by our department, several 
> other departments of the DKFZ, and by the folks at EMBL. Perhaps 
> others, but it's certainly our main imaging platform.
>
> We are in the process of getting our users onto OME, this of course 
> dependent on import and export. (Hence this and my previous thread.)  
> Leaving imports aside for a moment, the most critical step for us now 
> is to allow Tikal to access the OME servers, both DS and IS. (DS is 
> important for getting the time stamp info, Ilya, which we need for 
> simulations.) With such a comunication library, Tikal quickly becomes 
> YAOC (Yet another OME client).
>
> What we'd suggest is that we combine our efforts. We can start working 
> together with Zachary on a libcurl/libwww solution ( though I think we 
> need to return to the XML-RPC/SOAP discussion ). Chris, it might be 
> helpful if you posted/submitted to CVS your code. Also, Zach, do you 
> have anything prototyped? Perhaps another round of brainstorming is in 
> order to work out some implementation details. Then we'll get started.
>
> That's the first part of the discussion. The second deals with Tikal 
> itself. Tikal was (thankfully) designed to operate mostly as a 
> library. There's a thin layer of OpenGL that does 3D visualization, 
> etc. ...Perhaps I'll just open this up for debate: does it make sense, 
> once we have the C bindings, to provide Tikal as a library and rewrite 
> the 3D code in JOGL for Shoola, or do you see a benefit in having a C 
> client?
>
> Ok. Enough for today. I'm going to the lake.
> -Josh.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ome-devel mailing list
> ome-devel at lists.openmicroscopy.org.uk
> http://lists.openmicroscopy.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ome-devel
>