Re: [Clusterviz-devel] divided clusterdisplay

[Jonas M. <na...@us...>]

Hey,

On Sunday 29 January 2006 19:13, K.W...@gm... wrote:
> Hello!
> Few minutes ago I commited a rather big change. I divided the
> clusterdisplay class into two classes:
>  - one named again clusterdisplay, which contains all the clever code
>    needed to display the data, clusters and trajectories and to keep the
>    history,
>  - the other named glutwin manages the trackball and the clusterdisplay
>    and the GLUT callbacks. It does some thread management, too.

That is ok in principle. But can we please find another name for this class? I 
do not like how it has that "-win" suffix which seems to be used 
ubiquituously in the MS Windows world. Maybe be more verbose and use "window" 
or something the like or rename it to something similar. (Maybe it is plain 
silly to whine about variable names - but hey we are free to choose them!)

> I hope you like it (please give feedback). As far as I can see, it
> introduced no error to the code, except one: Currently, there is no status
> message telling the computation is over.

There were indeed some other errors introduced as you seem not to have worked 
on the most recent revisions. I noticed that changes to scripts/clusterviz 
which I had commited in revisions 116 and 121 were not anymore in the code. 
So I had to recommit that stuff. Please make sure always to work on the 
newest revisions - especially before commiting.

> I would like to correct this issue by introducing another class responsible
> for all communication between the OpenGL thread and the cluster algorithm
> thread. This would  probably simplify (i.e. shorten) the parameter list to
> the cluster algorithm, too. Please tell me if you don't want this.

In my opinion the introduction of such a class would seem reasonable. So 
please go ahead with that.

> The trackball class has been cleaned up and the clusterviz script adapted
> to employ the glutwin class instead of the clusterdisplay class. I know you
> wanted more atomic commits, but I did not know how to split this step into
> smaller ones.

Could you please verify that issues like the one I found and described above 
did not happen to other parts of the code? I will look into that too, but 
having more eyes check it would be better. Yet, as far as I can tell from the 
diff between revision 124 and 125 nothing else of this kind has happend.

> Kind regards,
> Karsten.

Regards, Jonas.