[Kdenlive-devel] Communication between GUI and Cutter

[Rolf Dubitzky]

On Friday 08 November 2002 06:07 pm, Jason Wood wrote:
> On Friday 08 Nov 2002 4:14 pm, Rolf Dubitzky wrote:
> > On Friday 08 November 2002 04:37 pm, Christian Berger wrote:
> > I know nothing of DCOP, beside it is based on ICE and that it sounds like
> > KDE dependece. I would not vote for a KDE or Qt dependent solution.
>
> I agree about no KDE/QT dependancy, and as far as I can tell, DCOP is
> one.It's a shame, because it makes the setting up of the interface
> incredibly easy ;-)

Yeah, I agree. It looks really simple.. that's a real pro of KDE/Qt in any 
respect. Even for DOM/XML. I would love to use QDom. Why can't everybody 
implement in such a intuitive fashion? Or why can't the trolls make their 
stuff a little more modular. I can easily use gdk-pixbuf without any other 
dependence on GNOME, but QPixmap.. no. Take it all or leave it all. ;-(

> I am reading up on ORBit at the moment. How complicated is CORBA, though?

I'm looking into ORBit right now, too.

> The implementation will be completely hidden within the BaseCutter class,
> but my concern here is to not scare off people who are unable to use that
> class for some reason (for example, Gnome people coding in C).

Hmm.. I don't think gnome people would be scared off by ORBit, it's the 
foundation of GNOME. And when it comes to the BaseCutter class itself. I will 
not 'use' it (read: inherit it) either. I think of it as the reference 
implementation of the interface.

> I've never heard of that one, more reading ahead, I presume :-)

This is what you use when you have MYRINet and want to calculate the weather 
forecast. We use it for Latice QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamic) simulation. All 
applications I know are in FORTRAN, but there is a C and C++ implementation, 
too. I am not sure which licence. I don't think it's widely used in 
OpenSource, I might be wrong though, I am not an expert.

> > > How about pipes or fifos they should be enought for that
> >
> > Pipes via NFS can be nasty but as a first step it is not better or worse
> > than the socket we use now, is it?
>
> The main concern that I have with sockets is that by being low-level, we
> are going to be reinventing the wheel to quite a degree, and that anyone
> else who cannot use the BaseCutter class will have to rewrite their own
> implementation. That is why I want to offload most of the work out of
> BaseCutter into some standard library that already exists.

I thought the plan was to pass a plain ASCII XML 'document' via the socket. 
Both sides can then use their preferred XML parser. QDom for KDE or libxml2 
for GNOME...

> On the other hand, if this simplicity comes at the cost of high latency or
> increased complexity, then it is not going to be a good solution.

True. I am not sure if passing ASCII XML documents around is an elegant and 
efficient solution.. actually, I doubt it ;-)

Cheers,
Rolf

***************************************************************
 Rolf Dubitzky  
 e-mail: Rolf.Dubitzky at Physik.TU-Dresden.de
 s-mail see http://hep.phy.tu-dresden.de/~dubitzky/
***************************************************************