- From: alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk (Alan Garny)
- Subject: [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] CellML API 1.10rc1 available now
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:09:47 +0100
Thanks for the clarification Andrew. I agree, it seems better to leave
things as they are.
Alan
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: cellml-tools-developers-bounces at cellml.org [mailto:cellml-tools-
>
developers-bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller
>
Sent: 06 September 2011 20:51
>
To: A list for the developers of CellML tools
>
Subject: Re: [cellml-dev] [cellml-discussion] CellML API 1.10rc1 available
now
>
>
On 31/08/11 19:19, Alan Garny wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
>
>
> I have just had a quick look at the Windows distribution (though I
>
> imagine the same would apply to the other distributions) and it would
>
> be nice if there was a way to put all the files related to the Java
>
> and Python bindings in to their own folders (in the way it has been done
for
>
the Python 'lib'
>
> files?). My point is that I, for one, have no interest in them and
>
> since I intend to add the CellML API files in to OpenCOR's Git
>
> repository, I obviously have to sort out which ones should be kept and
>
which ones not.
>
> Again, it's no big deal, but in the same way it would make people's
>
> life easier, so... could that be done?...
>
>
Hi Alan,
>
>
The Python directory is for the loadable Python modules; they are in a
>
separate directory because the loadable module names have to be in a
>
directory and have a name that reflects the name they are invoked by in
>
Python. Note that the libraries used for Python interaction (as opposed to
the
>
loadable module) are in the libs directory, it is only the loadable
modules
>
that are separated out.
>
>
For Java, we also have a situation where we have loadable modules and
>
normal libraries; it might make sense to separate out the loadable modules
>
so they can be installed in one place (although Java doesn't make that
>
essential, so it might actually be cleaner to have them all in one place
as we
>
do now).
>
>
We definitely don't want to start splitting up the libraries themselves
into
>
different places, because to use the API, you need to put the path for the
>
libraries you are going to use into LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and it would make it
>
much harder for new users if they had to add multiple directories, and
>
complicate the tutorials.
>
>
I think the reality is that people who are moving the binaries to other
places
>
will want to pick out the specific libraries they want anyway.
>
For example, you might not want to use all the services the API provides;
you
>
would then only take the libraries you need, and their dependencies. All
in all,
>
I don't think there is a significant benefit to API users in splitting
libraries into
>
subdirectories, and there are significant drawbacks.
>
>
I'm putting this up on the tracker as tracker item 3037
>
(https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3037) to document
this.
>
>
Best wishes,
>
Andrew
>
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Alan Garny [mailto:alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk]
>
>> Sent: 31 August 2011 08:05
>
>> To: Andrew Miller (ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz)
>
>> Cc: Randall Britten (r.britten at auckland.ac.nz)
>
>> Subject: RE: [cellml-discussion] CellML API 1.10rc1 available now
>
>>
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>
>>
>
>> Thanks a lot for 1.10rc1. Just a few questions/requests, if you don't
>
> mind:
>
>> - Would it be possible to have different names for the Linux
>
>> .tar.bz2
>
> files?
>
>> Right now, both the x86 and x64 versions have the same name. No big
>
>> deal, of course, but still it would be nice.
>
>> - More importantly, for me, is the wish for a compressed version of
>
>> the
>
> Mac
>
>> OS X binary. Right now, you are offering a .dmg file which I am not
>
> interested
>
>> in, sorry...
>
>>
>
>> I am relocating to France between the weekend and next Wednesday, so
>
>> I am not sure how much time I will have to test the 1.10rc1, but I
>
>> will give it
>
> a quick
>
>> try.
>
>>
>
>> Cheers, Alan.
>
>>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>
>>> From: cellml-discussion-bounces at cellml.org
>
>>> [mailto:cellml-discussion- bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
>
>>> Miller
>
>>> Sent: 31 August 2011 07:51
>
>>> To: A list for the developers of CellML tools; For those interested
>
>>> in contributing to the development of CellML.
>
>>> Subject: [cellml-discussion] CellML API 1.10rc1 available now
>
>>>
>
>>> Hi all,
>
>>>
>
>>> I have just made release candidate 1 for the CellML API, version 1.10.
>
>>>
>
>>> This release candidate will become the CellML API 0.10 if no-one
>
>>> finds any problems with it by next Wednesday (New Zealand time).
>
>>>
>
>>> Please try it out and let me know if there are any problems with it.
>
>>>
>
>>> The page about the release candidate:
>
>>>
>
>>> http://www.cellml.org/tools/downloads/cellml_api/releases/1.10rc1
>
>>>
>
>>> New features
>
>>> ============
>
>>> This release provides a number of bug fixes, as well as some
>
>>> important new
>
>>> features:
>
>>> Experimental support for parameter uncertainty.
>
>>> New services for processing SED-ML simulation experiment
>
>>> descriptions and running simulation experiments.
>
>>> Better Python and Java support.
>
>>> A completely new, easier to use build system (CMake based).
>
>>> All dependencies are now included in the build tree.
>
>>> Support for building on the MingW platform on Windows (along
>
>>> with MSVC 10).
>
>>>
>
>>> Best wishes,
>
>>> Andrew Miller
>
>>> _______________________________________________
>
>>> cellml-discussion mailing list
>
>>> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
>
>>> http://lists.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
cellml-tools-developers mailing list
>
cellml-tools-developers at cellml.org
>
http://lists.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-tools-developers
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.