Sounds good. -- Anders
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:53:11PM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga wrote: > Right! I'll make it optional, probably with some functionality missing > without QT. > > -j. > > On 29 August 2012 17:48, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 09:52:51AM -0500, Andy Ray Terrel wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Garth N. Wells <gn...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> > On 29 August 2012 10:36, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga wrote: > >> >>> On 29 August 2012 11:11, Garth N. Wells <gn...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> >>> > On 29 August 2012 09:42, Joachim Berdal Haga <j...@simula.no> wrote: > >> >>> >> I would like to switch the window handling and event loop to QT, > >> >>> >> because it's much more flexible and mature (stable) than VTK's. An > >> >>> >> example of things that are hard to get working right with the VTK > >> >>> >> window handling is to close a single plotting window. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> This will introduce a new dependency for plotting (in addition to > >> >>> >> VTK). It will be optional, and if it's not configured then it's only > >> >>> >> plotting that is disabled. > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> Any protests? > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I'd rather not have it as a dependency. I don't really want a major > >> >>> > dependency for lightweight plotting. I think we should bear in mind > >> >>> > that we have ParaView, MayaVi, etc for making 'real' plots, so the > >> >>> > DOLFIN plotting should remain as simple as possible. > >> >>> > >> >>> I agree with keeping it simple. The reason I want to introduce it is > >> >>> not to introduce anything complex, but to gain more robust window > >> >>> handling / event loop. However: Opposition noted -- would option 2 > >> >>> (basic support for VTK-only) be acceptable to you? > >> >> > >> >> I don't see why QT would be a problem. Isn't the VTK dependency just > >> >> as heavy? > >> > > >> > Are you saying the 2 x 'heavy' is the same as 1 x 'heavy'? > >> > > >> > I've just checked, and QT is a 229MB tar ball! > >> > > >> >> Or are there systems where VTK is easily available but QT is > >> >> not? > >> >> > >> > > >> > There are lots of systems where neither is available. Needing two > >> > makes the configuration and build ever more complicated. I know > >> > first-hand that our config and build needs work on non-Ubuntu/Debian > >> > systems, which I'd rather have sorted out before adding big > >> > dependencies. > >> > > >> > Garth > >> > >> Piping in from a guy who builds too much code on supercomputers, I > >> would suggest not making QT a hard dependency. It is a pretty intense > >> build and takes lots of space. We only support it on a few of our > >> machines but all our machines support VTK. > >> > >> Although Joachim is right about the event loop. QT is the best gui > >> interface out there, but perhaps it should be more of an optional > >> dependency. > > > > ok. My assumption here was that plotting was mostly interesting on > > desktop machines (not compute servers) and QT is easily available on > > desktops. > > > > But perhaps a bigger problem is packaging for Mac and Windows which > > would require bundling QT. > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
