[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [science-iwg] Brief update on science-iwg related discussion at EclipseCon
|
Hi Torkild,
I like the idea of the scientific community to start sharing code via
the Eclipse repository. The swt-xy-graph sounds like an excellent
starting point as plotting is the most common activity of all scientific
applications. I would vote for this if Xihui and ORNL agree of course.
I suggest you add your product to the (growing) list of scientific
applications based on Eclipse:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Science_IWG
BTW SIMA and in general the work on wind turbines by Marintek looks very
interesting. This is the first time I have heard about it.
I agree it would be great to have a session dedicated to scientific
applications at the future EclipseCons.
Best regards
Andy
On 03/31/2013 10:59 PM, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
Hi all and thanks for the update Jay Jay!
I just wanted to chime in on the subject of swt-xy-graph. We (the SIMA team) have discussed this and are willing to share the "compressing data provider" extension we made for this API - if there is any interest of course. This extends the swt-xy-graph by adding code that will take into consideration the available pixels when drawing large data series. We need to get an official OK from MARINTEK which owns this bit, but that is only a formality.
However, for the initial contribution plus our bit to be a part of the Science IWG code base we need to put all of it into an Eclipse repository. We must get an OK from Xihui Chen and we will also need his help to establish provenance and get through a CQ[1] along with any tidy-up required. I don't know how this is normally done so I've added emo@xxxxxxxxxxx (Wayne Beaton) to the CC. Anyway, as I'm already an Eclipse committer I'll help out in any way I can.
Note that the code does not HAVE to be in an Eclipse repository, which also implies that it's not part of an Eclipse project. It can be an external project, but in my understanding it would still have to be through the CQ process for it to be used. I consider this the less desirable option.
I also would like to add that it was great discussing these things. We should definitely continue at the next opportunity. Meanwhile the SIMA team will probably start working on a talk about marine operations, simulations, modeling, 3D and so forth ;-) And it would be great if we also get other talks from the Science IWG community. If we cannot get these into the official program we could still do shorter versions at one or more BoFs. I would certainly love to see what you all are up to.
Best regards,
Torkild
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf (see figure 3)
