> - 3D graphics is much better done in OpenInventor (which is used by
> three out for four LHC experiments, but not supported by LCG-Root)
> or Java3D.
I think the discussion should be honest one.
Let me comment that OpenInventor viewer for ROOT was introduced a while ( 6 years to be precise ) ago.
http://conferences.fnal.gov/acat2000/program/papers/posters/p104_papers_ revised.doc
http://www-conf.kek.jp/acat03/prog/presen/id0113.ppt
It is still exist.
However, I have not seen yet any LHC people crowding around of my office as soon as their concern is indeed 3D graphics quality and about the capability to use some 3D party tool in ROOT.
I see no technical reason that may have forbidden using ROOT and OpenInventor within one application. At least, other people use it and have not realized they need any ROOT support http://www.ual.bnl.gov/ .
I do not want averting this discussion to the OpenInvertor vs something
else.
ROOT team has its own solid strong reason to do what they do.
My point is simple one.
Thanks ROOT design, as a matter of _fact_ is it relatively simple to use 3D party product like OpenInventor within ROOT application.
As soon as you think you need it, just use it. ROOT support might have simplified work a little bit ( I am not sure ;).
Anyway, you can do that alone. No special skill to combine things beyond a college C++ course is required. What really needed is the real user demand.
Valeri
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-roottalk_at_pcroot.cern.ch
[mailto:owner-roottalk_at_pcroot.cern.ch] On
> Behalf Of Julius Hrivnac
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 5:59 AM
> To: Federico Carminati
> Cc: Bertrand Bellenot; andy.buckley_at_durham.ac.uk; cstrato; roottalk
(Mailing
> list discussing all aspects of the ROOT system); Guy Barrand
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [ROOT] Wikipedia criticism about root]
>
> Hi Federico,
> yes, it is true that Root has been for long time formally
> forbidden in CERN and LHC++ alternatives offered by CERN IT
(Objectivity,
> Iris Explorer, ...) were unusable. And it is also true that Root team
> (very small at the beginning) has reused a heroic job in writing
> a very usable alternative Framework - Root - and has provided an
excellent
> User Support (I see that as the most important source in the Root
> success).
> When the disaster of LHC++ has been officially
recognized,
> if was just the product which has changed (Root has replaced LHC++),
> but not the policy (as before, no alternatives are allowed). Root is
> certainly infinitely better tool that its LHC++ predecessors. [I'm
> really impressed (I'm serious) what Root team has reused to implement
> using completely inappropriate implementation language.]
> However, most of Root functionality is just a simplified
> re-implementation of things which exists elsewhere (most often
> in a Java world, but not only). Just to name the most obvious
examples:
> - Reflection exists in all languages except C/C++.
> - Persistency is available elsewhere going from simple Java
serialisation,
> through sophisticated Object-Relational tools to efficient file
> formats like HDF5.
> - 3D graphics is much better done in OpenInventore (which is used by
> three out for four LHC experiments, but not supported by LCG-Root)
> or Java3D.
> - SQL has its standard API - JDBC, which is written in Java but can
> be used transparently from C++.
> - etc.etc.etc.
>
> And users have to use limited re-implementation
> instead of the more functional original for two reasons:
> 1) Technical: Root architecture makes it very difficult to replace
> one its component with a third-party alternative.
> We may discuss to which extent it is the fault (or
intent)
> of the Root team and how far it is just the direct
> consequence of the C++ limitations.
> 2) Political: LCG/AA doesn't allow to (even talk about) any
alternatives
> which would be in competition with Root. Examples ?:
> - At the beginning of LCG/AA, it has been scheduled to
> set up a RTAG group to study a potential Java role.
> The name of the RTAG has been then change from "Java"
to
> "future language" and later silently canceled.
> - Proposals to present FreeHEP/JAS software in LCG have
been
> refused.
> - AIDA has been supported only with incomplete (Anaphe)
> implementation, its API has been modified (so it has
> become incompatible with other AIDA implementations),
> the LCG/AA/AIDA team has been reduced to a fraction
> of one person. All other implementations of AIDA
> have been refused.
> - etc.etc.etc.
>
> Julius
>
> Federico Carminati wrote:
> > Thanks Bertrand for this,
> > I wanted to stay out of this argument. We had a lot of this
inside
> > CERN, and, as you correctly point out, its main feature was
sterility.
> > There is one thing however that I would like to correct. From some
of
> > the postings, particularly the one you replied to, it seems that
ROOT
> > has been "imposed" by the establishment and that all dissent and
> > opposition is now silenced. This is a funny revision of history.
Perhaps
> > not many people outside CERN know this, but at some point ROOT
> > development and adoption was forbidden by CERN management with a
very
> > formal document. ROOT authors have shown an exceptional endurance
and
> > motivation to continue develop their product in the face of an
official
> > and formal ban from the establishment, personal attacks and more
(much
> > more that I am not going to write into an email)!. ROOT came into
the
> > game as an underdog, its development unsupported and its adoption
> > discouraged.
> > It is perhaps the best tribute to ROOT that it has become THE
> > reference application for HEP worldwide. Is it perfect? Look around
you
> > and tell me how many perfect software products you see. But it does
the
> > job jolly well and the ROOT team has maintained all its enthusiasm
and
> > dedication to work with ROOT users to meet their requirements.
> > It is perhaps the best tribute to CERN management that ROOT is now
> > fully supported and it has become the mainstay of LCG software.
Could it
> > have been done better? I would be surprised if the answer were no,
of
> > course it could have been. But to all those who say "my solution was
> > better, but it was not retained", I would like to point out that
they
> > have only two alternative explanations to the present situation.
Either
> > they are more clever than us all, but so much more that we did not
even
> > understand what they were saying, or they have been silenced. The
second
> > explanation may be reassuring for them, but is false, and the ROOT
story
> > shows it. A good solution, even confronted with the strongest
> > establishment opposition, at the end prevails. The first answer may
well
> > be true, but, as all scientific facts, it needs to be proven, and
> > hitherto it has not been.
> > Best,
> >
> > Federico Carminati
> > CERN-PH
> > 1211 Geneva 23
> > Switzerland
> > Tel: +41 22 76 74959
> > Fax: +41 22 76 79480
> > Mobile: +41 76 487 4843
> >
> > On 30 Jun 2006, at 08:59, Bertrand Bellenot wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Interesting to see that some people have quite some time to go into
this
> >> kind of endless discussion.
> >> It is like the war between Fortran, C/C++, C#, Java... or between
Linux,
> >> Windows, and MacOS.
> >> Everyone has its own taste, its own point of view. So what ?
> >> Coming from industry, I can tell that you should be happy to be
able
> >> (more or less) to do your job (I mean physics) with software
designed
> >> for it. By experience, I can say that it is not always (well,
almost
> >> never) the case...
> >> I spent quite a few years fighting to justify software
implementation
> >> choices with people who don't know the difference between Visual
Basic
> >> and C++, and I'm quite disappointed to see this kind of sterile
polemic
> >> here :-(
> >> Just my humble (and personal) opinion.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bertrand.
> >>
> >> P.S. I will not enter this discussion, but I really had to comment
on
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-roottalk_at_pcroot.cern.ch
> >> [mailto:owner-roottalk_at_pcroot.cern.ch] On Behalf Of Andy Buckley
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:58 PM
> >> To: Julius Hrivnac
> >> Cc: cstrato; roottalk (Mailing list discussing all aspects of the
ROOT
> >> system)
> >> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [ROOT] Wikipedia criticism about root]
> >>
> >> Julius Hrivnac wrote:
> >>
> >>>> PS. Myself and cstrato seem to have assumed the twin roles of
Chief
> >>>> Arguer here. I think it would be of benefit if others ---
including
> >>>> some of those who've mailed me personally with supportive
messages
> >>>> and the main ROOT developers, who presumably (I hope!) have
opinions
> >>>> on these issues --- can add to the debate. Otherwise this whole
> >>>> affair is a waste of words... a fact which I suspect is not lost
on
> >>>> the more prominent silent parties ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Many people have spend already a lot of time in arguments about
Root
> >>> problems. I certainly did, Guy Barrand did, FreeHEP team did,...
> >>> People working in LHC experiments (as I do) are very well aware of
> >>> serious Root problems, but:
> >>> - don't have time to discuss them because they have to fix them
> >>> - are discouraged by the fact that no serious discussion about
Root
> >>> alternatives is allowed in LCG/AA (CERN official LHC software
> >>> project)
> >>
> >> Thanks for the comments. This explanation is entirely in keeping
with my
> >> understanding of the situation. Does anyone else have any comments
on
> >> this?
> >>
> >> I'm glad that bug fixes are being fed back into ROOT rather than
fixed
> >> "locally" on a per-user or per-experiment basis. At least I hope
that's
> >> what's happening! :) There are certain "bugs", however, like the
class
> >> design, UI etc. that cannot be fixed by outside parties: those will
> >> require a design and development effort, at least by the core team
who
> >> (by definition) do have the time to work on it.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> There is a point in your life when you realize that you have written
enough
> destructors,
> and have spent enough time tracking down a memory leak,
> and you have spend enough time tracking down memory corruption,
> and you have spent enough time using low-level insecure functions,
> and you have implemented way too many linked lists
> ...
>
########################################################################
########################################################################
########################################################################Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 18:11:01 MEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 01 2007 - 16:31:59 MET