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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29 August 2012 10:36, Anders Logg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Joachim Berdal Haga wrote: > >>> On 29 August 2012 11:11, Garth N. Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > On 29 August 2012 09:42, Joachim Berdal Haga <[email protected]> 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. -- Anders _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
