From jeff at bioinformatics.org Tue Oct 9 00:08:43 2001 From: jeff at bioinformatics.org (J.W. Bizzaro) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:39:23 2006 Subject: [Pipet Users] Slashdot | RSI, WIMPs and Pipes; What Next? Message-ID: <3BC2784B.8F59CBB6@bioinformatics.org> Greetings Pipers! Here's an article on Slashdot, mostly about killing WIMP and input devices, but there's an indirect reference to Piper: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/08/177210&mode=flat BTW, I know it's been quiet. If we don't get further input about version 0.0.2test1, we will release it and make some announcements about the PiedPiper desktop project: http://bioinformatics.org/piedpiper/ Cheers. Jeff From jean-marc.valin at hermes.usherb.ca Tue Oct 9 00:28:29 2001 From: jean-marc.valin at hermes.usherb.ca (Jean-Marc Valin) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:39:23 2006 Subject: [Pipet Users] Slashdot | RSI, WIMPs and Pipes; What Next? In-Reply-To: <3BC2784B.8F59CBB6@bioinformatics.org> References: <3BC2784B.8F59CBB6@bioinformatics.org> Message-ID: <1002601709.3bc27cedb1e6f@imp.usherb.ca> > BTW, I know it's been quiet. If we don't get further input about > version > 0.0.2test1, we will release it and make some announcements about the > PiedPiper > desktop project: Speaking of upcoming release, there's Overflow 0.6.0 coming soon. One of the most interesting new feature is network support. Although the network stuff in Piper will be handled by the BL, having network support in Overflow (PL) helps a lot in testing and designing. In CVS, you can try the socket_listen.n and socket_connect.n examples, which let you play an MP3 on a machine and listen it on another (assuming you have at least a 10 Mbps link between!). What's even cooler is that it's done just by implementing a new C++ stream for sockets, so you can simply use the << and >> operators as if writing to a file or to the console. Jean-Marc From jeff at bioinformatics.org Sat Oct 13 02:11:26 2001 From: jeff at bioinformatics.org (Jeff) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:39:23 2006 Subject: [Pipet Users] FW: Re: sbw Message-ID: <3BC7DB0E.877453D8@bioinformatics.org> >From Michael Hucka (large pdf not forwarded): ------------------------- jeff> Hi Michael. We just approved your project, sbw. jeff> Reading your description, I got the impression that jeff> the application has some of the same goals as Piper: jeff> http://bioinformatics.org/pipernet/ jeff> I would like your opinion on where you see some jeff> differences, if any. Perhaps there can be some jeff> collaboration. Hi Jeff, Thanks for setting us up on bioinformatics.org. We took a look at Piper some time ago and at the time, our sense was that PiperNet was indeed similar but differed in the following ways (and I admit these may be incorrect): - The protocol seems to require XML in its data transmissions, whereas SBW supports a number of data types, both binary and string. One *could* send XML using SBW, but it's not required. We see this as an advantage because it permits fast binary data transmissions if desired. - SBW is broker-based; this provides things like a registry and the ability to have callback notifications. It's not clear if Piper uses a broker -- perhaps it does also? - The SBW libraries for high-level object-oriented languages like Java provide proxy objects that greatly simplify the access of remote services. In Java, for example, there is very little "SBWness" involved in getting applications to talk to each other. We were trying to make SBW as transparent as we could to the application. (Things are not so easy in C, unfortunately, where one ends up having to go through a lot more work.) - Piper has a graphical dataflow-like layout system which SBW lacks. Piper has a paradigm involving nodes and data flows between them. These are cool ideas and advantageous in some context. One point, however, is that although SBW elements could be viewed in a similar way, most of the tools for which SBW is intended are GUI tools and it's not so easy to program their interactions from a third entity. Rather, the interactions emerge as users use the tools and switch from one to another. However, there are definitely points of similarity between Piper and SBW. I think our group here needs to look at PiperNet more closely. I see that the PiperNet pages have new material which we should look at. In case you're interested, I've attached a recent paper on SBW. This will appear in the upcoming ICSB2001 proceedings (http://www.icsb2001.org/). We have other documentation at http://www.cds.caltech.edu/erato most of which will make its way to bioinformatics.org in time. A collaboration would be fruitful if we can find ways of combining the best ideas of both systems. Mike From jeff at oln-127.olney.uml.edu Fri Oct 19 13:05:13 2001 From: jeff at oln-127.olney.uml.edu (J.W. Bizzaro) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:39:23 2006 Subject: [Pipet Users] Re: Piper questions In-Reply-To: from "Herbert M Sauro" at Oct 12, 2001 11:05:19 AM Message-ID: <200110191705.NAA12167@oln-127.olney.uml.edu> Hi Herbert. Sorry for the late reply. Your message was sent to my SMTP system rather than my regular mail account (jeff@bioinformatics.org). > 1. Does piper run under windows? Not currently. But, since we are writing and rewriting with libraries which all run under Windows, it should work. We would only need some Windows developers to help with the port, since the project leaders all use *NIX. > 2. Is it tied in to CORBA? It is not an extention of CORBA, but we have been using it. There has been some discussion about using something else, either for part of Piper or all of it, or maybe just letting the object broker be pluggable. > 3. I see you move data back and forth using XML, how are you finding the > performance, we know that XML-RPC is ten times slower than straight > binary transfers and our applications requires as good a performance as > possible > since we're running numeric simulation applications. Only "internal" (brokering) information is passed using XML. Nodes communicate whichever way they normally would, with some security added by the broker. We say that Piper is "agnostic" about communication protocols and data formats used between nodes. It puts more of a burden on the Piper developer, but it makes the system more flexible. Cheers. Jeff From jean-marc.valin at infospace.com Fri Oct 19 14:22:36 2001 From: jean-marc.valin at infospace.com (Jean-Marc Valin) Date: Fri Feb 10 19:39:23 2006 Subject: [Pipet Users] Re: Piper questions References: <200110191705.NAA12167@oln-127.olney.uml.edu> Message-ID: <3BD06F6C.863E4E2A@infospace.com> > > 1. Does piper run under windows? > > Not currently. But, since we are writing and rewriting with libraries > which all run under Windows, it should work. We would only need some > Windows developers to help with the port, since the project leaders all > use *NIX. I'd like to add the the Piper Processing Layer (PL, aka Overflow) has already been ported to Win32. The port is not complete yet, but it's enough for many applications. > > 3. I see you move data back and forth using XML, how are you finding the > > performance, we know that XML-RPC is ten times slower than straight > > binary transfers and our applications requires as good a performance as > > possible > > since we're running numeric simulation applications. There is already a mecanism for binary (endian-independent) serialization of objects to file or through network. It's fast enough to stream audio at 44.1 kHz (2-channel, 32-bit/sample) through a socket with less than 5% CPU. For those interested, we'll soon release a demo. Jean-Marc