I beg your pardon for digging up this zombie thread, but there is something that came to my mind about this.
IceT consists of - the core library - a communication library - a bunch of composition strategies All parts are easily exchangeable. E.g. the default communication library is built on top of MPI, but you can also use your own communication library. Equalizer consists of many more features, but they are all tightly coupled together. There is no "pay as you go" option. If you are looking for a distributed, versioned object layer without a compositing library, look further; Equalizer does not provide the right solution. To me this "and much more ;)" does not sound like a feature, but as a design flaw. Should we address this? Should we disintegrate Equalizer into independant and most notably *reusable* subprojects? Their usefulness is beyond question! Cheers, Daniel -- View this message in context: http://software.1713.n2.nabble.com/comparision-with-ParaView-IceT-tp4412173p5538272.html Sent from the Equalizer - Parallel Rendering mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ eq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.equalizergraphics.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eq-dev http://www.equalizergraphics.com
