This is odd. I just tried the same with a server built without VisIt bridge and a client with VisitBridge and tried to load a bov file and ParaView nicely told me to pick the reader to use since it could not decide which one to use.
Utkarsh On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Chourasia, Amit <[email protected]> wrote: > This was the error reported when I loaded a .bov file > > Connection URL: cs://gcn-13-47.sdsc.edu:11111 > Accepting connection(s): gcn-13-47.sdsc.edu:11111 > Client connected. > ERROR: In > /oasis/scratch/amit/temp_project/ParaView-3.14.0-Source/ParaViewCore/ServerImplementation/vtkSIProxyDefinitionManager.cxx, > line 543 > vtkSIProxyDefinitionManager (0x753c60): No proxy that matches: group=sources > and proxy=VisItBOVReader were found. > > ERROR: In > /oasis/scratch/amit/temp_project/ParaView-3.14.0-Source/ParaViewCore/ServerImplementation/vtkSIProxy.cxx, > line 292 > vtkSISourceProxy (0xab9000): Definition not found for xml_group: sources and > xml_name: VisItBOVReader > global_id: 3404 > location: 2 > > > > On Mar 27, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: > >> What version of ParaView was this? >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Chourasia, Amit <[email protected]> wrote: >>> My server side Paraview build was built without visit bridge. >>> On client side I used binaries for OS X 64 bit >>> I established a cs session and when I tired to open a .bov file both client >>> and server crashed. >>> Utkarsh this behaviour seems buggy as per your explanation. >>> >>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Utkarsh Ayachit wrote: >>> >>>>> If we don't explicitly enable the bridge on the server side, and user is >>>>> making use of client from the KW binaries, will it crash if a file type >>>>> associated to the bridge is opened? >>>> >>>> No it won't, starting 3.14. With 3.14 the client fetches the list of >>>> available proxies from the server, so if the server doesn't have the >>>> VisIt bridge enabled, the readers simply won't be available for the >>>> client. >>>> >>>> >>>>> do you think that the PV binaries c/should be built with the default build >>>>> options, to reduce incompatibilities? but also maybe to improve the cmake >>>>> coverage? >>>> >>>> Not sure what you mean exactly. Are you saying the default cmake >>>> values should be the ones that we use to build PV binaries? I think >>>> the superbuild proposal will address this issue. Using the superbuild >>>> it would be easier to build binaries using similar settings. >>>> >>>> Utkarsh >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>> >>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>> >>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: >>> http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView >>> >>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>> http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview > > _______________________________________________ > Powered by www.kitware.com > > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html > > Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: > http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView > > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: > http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the ParaView Wiki at: http://paraview.org/Wiki/ParaView Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.paraview.org/mailman/listinfo/paraview
