Hi Philip et. Al.,
I quite like what you propose for C. We will need an area where we can share which is named neutrally I suppose. This does not stop projects being formed under
eclipse with their own identities and being affiliated to Science WG as you suggest. Also if we define extension points and interfaces in a common area, we can provide alternative implementations for things while keeping interoperability.
Just to keep things concrete, I have attached some example source code using the API I would propose. In this case we are plotting 1D data and the IPlottingSystem
would delegate to xy-graph for that (we have an implementation that doesJ. However surfaces, images
and many many other features would be included in the API.
Matt
PS The IDataset interface represents an object created by one of our guys here, Peter Chang, which allows Java to operate similar to numpy!! If you are not
familiar with numpy then I would certainly recommend a look (even though I am a hard core Java fan) it is awesome
J We plan to move our Java implementation to use the new parallel streams in Java8. Therefore the
IDataset interface will get even faster for various mathematical operations, maybe even give numpy a run for its money.
From: science-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:science-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Wenig
Sent: 06 November 2013 10:14
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Review BoF EclipseCon
Hi all,
I think there are three issues that need to be addressed here:
A) How are we going to name the "Science WG" proposal?
Do we need a distinct IDN for the Science WG like "org.eclipse.science" or is it only a frame for all participating projects, see C?
B) Which name should we take for a generic 1d - 3d data processing and visualization framework?
In my opinion, a separate project called "SciSoft" -> "org.eclipse.scisoft" would be fine if there are no concerns regarding trademarks. IHMO, only "org.eclipse.science" would be a bit too generic.
C) Shall all participating projects change their plug-in names to "org.eclipse.science"?
I think no. The Science WG will be (only) the top level project. It will be the umbrella for several distinct subprojects. Hence, each project shall write an own proposal to migrate its code to the Eclipse Foundation. All accepted and migrated projects could
then be a part of the Science WG, e.g.:
SciSoft @eclipse (org.eclipse.scisoft)
DAWN -> DAWN @eclipse (org.eclipse.dawn)
SIMA -> SIMA @eclipse (org.eclipse.sima)
Bioclipse -> Bioclipse @eclipse (org.eclipse.bioclipse)
OpenChrom -> ChemClipse @eclipse (org.eclipse.chemclipse) [We have a trademark on OpenChrom, hence we are going to write a proposal as ChemClipse]
...
What's your opinion?
Cheers
Philip
Hello,
Yes this was my thinking too, I thought org.eclipse.science was not likely to be the project name (?) and org.eclipse.science-iwg is rather pants so I resorted
to org.eclipse.scisoft. However maybe we could make org.eclipse.science the project after all? Or would that be somewhat arrogant to the other science projects under eclipse?
I think, but am not entirely sure, that it would be good if we do choose one we all agree on. The alternative is that we all submit our own eclipse projects.
I think we would likely get more value from a joint project but it will be harder to set up and agree on. Which is where the starting small idea came from.
Matt
Before everyone gets too committed to this namespace, let's check with Wayne Beaton. My recollection is that the current recommendation is that project
namespaces be simply org.eclipse.projectname, and not include the top-level project.
But Wayne's the guy who knows :)
+1 from me too for org.eclipse.science.
Jay
On Nov 5, 2013 4:44 PM, "UOMo" <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just to add, I also feel OK with the package hierarchy suggestions other than the name of the project top level;-)
Werner
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, <science-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send science-iwg mailing list submissions to
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
science-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
science-iwg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of science-iwg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Review BoF EclipseCon (Stephan Druskat)
2. Re: Review BoF EclipseCon (Torkild U. Resheim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 21:01:44 +0100
From: Stephan Druskat <stephan.druskat@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Review BoF EclipseCon
Message-ID: <20131105210144.57790v7t4keb96zk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Hi All,
+1 for org.eclipse.science.*, just because it's nice and generic and
probably un-trademark-able.
Other than that I like Matt & Philip's suggestions.
Cheers,
Stephan
--
Stephan Druskat
stephan.druskat@xxxxxxxxxxx
Zitat von UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Just saw, Scisoft or the ESO (EU Observatory) software artifact is even
> called "eclipse", too,
http://www.eso.org/sci/software/eclipse/ for obvious
> reasons, it deals with Solar or Lunar Eclipse observation, there is no
> evidence of Eclipse software being used, but that makes the combination of
> "eclipse" and "scisoft" even more irritating.
>
> Especiallly that looks like a very professional and well-established
> project, even if there may not be a trademark.
>
> Werner
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt
by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd.
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Philip Wenig
http://www.openchrom.net
https://www.xing.com/profile/Philip_Wenig
http://de.linkedin.com/pub/philip-wenig/2a/4a8/877
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail. Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message. Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom
|