| Item |
Topic |
Description |
Priority |
Comments |
Supported? |
| 1 |
Transparency |
Minimize inheritance and
overloading |
This goes along very well with
ABC's - remember no implementation means nothing to inherit and/or
override (I think Jin meant overriding, not overloading here). |
||
| 2 |
Transparency | Candidates to be infinitely
modifiable until written to disk - No cloning |
Yes - new reco objects are
modifiable. There have to be some decisions made about what can be
modified and when, otherewise it can become chaotic. |
||
| 3 |
Transparency | Unified approach to useage of navigation tools and other common utility functions | Absolutely! STL is the "new and
unified" approach to navigation and common utility functions. Please
learn and use STL. |
||
| 4 |
Transparency | Minimize need for boilerplate
code |
Handles and Lists are class
templates in the new framework, so a large amount of
"CandXxx[List]Handle" classes (that usually require boilerplate code)
are not existent. A reco develper has to write only an Algorithm class
and nothing else. (One could add their own implementations of the
reco objects, but it is not necessary). |
||
| 5 |
Transparency | Rewritten code conforms strictly
to common set of coding practices |
There would be very strict
(draconian) rules in the new reco fwk. For example with
Handle<Xxx> objects the rules are: 1) no pointers to hanldes 2) no "new" 3) no Handles should live between records Documentation with howto's and examples is essential and would be provided. |
||
| 6 |
Transparency |
Changes to one candidate
interface should minimally impact other developers |
This is true in the sense that
the changes to say TrackABC do not affect Shower objects in any way.
But changes of TrackABC interface absolutely have to affect all the
track implementations - they all have to be modified to accomodate any
interface change and there is no way around it (of course we could
provide
a "default implementation" that will be changed along with the
interface; but then having a default implememntation goes against item
1 of this wishlist). Compiler
will immediately point out what changes have to be made in the
implementtation classes when the interface is modified. |
||
| 7 |
Transparency | No string lookups - or else all
strings should be defined in one place in the code |
We agree, but this is orthogonal
to the proposed framework. |
||
| 8 |
Transparency | In production for each object
type
write out only 1 list from 1 algorithm. Object modules know about all
possible algorithms for creating that object. |
Do not understand what this
means. |
||
| 9 |
Data I/O Model |
'Snarl'-centric, 'event'-centric, 'slice'-centric data models should be supported. Event structure should be modified to provide a more natural container for event components. | This is all up for discussion.
Any-centric system can be implemented. |
||
| 10 |
Data I/O Model | Navigate through objects in a
natural fashion in both directions in the hierarchy |
Navigation from top to bottom is
trivial (as in event -> tracks -> strips -> digits).
Navigation from bottom to top in the sense of every object having a
"back-link" to its parent object is not built into the new framework
(adds a lot of complexity without being real necessary). This
functionality could be trivially implemented using STL search
algorithms. |
||
| 11 |
Data I/O Model | Ntuple-like interace/structure
to the candidate to provide all the currently available functionality
with additional capabilities provided by bi-directional hierarchy flow.
Eliminate standard ntuples. Ability to reprocess candidate files no
longer a requirement. |
For ntuple interface to
candidates: must be a one-to-one correspondance between candidate
Get/Set methods and ntuple data member. Caius: (a) ability to reprocess is useful! (b) Candidate files don't need to be Draw()able - just need a 2 step process to get to analysis ntuple. |
The main goal of the proposal is to replace the Candiddate files. As far as we are concerned the ntuples could be left as is or modified to reflect the object structure better. We think that making objects in the proposed framework to behave like ntuples could potentially break or significantly alter the framework design. | |
| 12 |
Data I/O Model | I/O performance of new system
must not be a reason for not using the candidate files. Consider
Partial I/O to speed up access to subsets of data. |
This is the most important
consideration. The new reco files should be "usable" in terms of I/O -
where the useability condition could be set as "can read one month of
ND spill data in X hours"). We have to achieve this by "shrinking" the
reco info if necessary (eg dropping digits) otherwise the whole idea is
pointless. We are not proposing to replace one type of files that
nobody ever uses with another type that nobody would use. |
||
| 13 |
Code Development | Some place to put arbitrary user data into ntuples and candidates | Once making candidates is easy,
can just make a custom CandUser to write user data. |
Revive the idea to put a
registry in reco objects where some arbitrary data can be saved?
Wouldn't be a problem. This could be allowed only for development, but
not for production jobs. |
|
| 14 |
Code Development | New candidate creation should
not require an algorithm. Algorithms should act on created data
objects, not create them themselves. |
We do not quite agree with
this. Algorithms bring some structure into the system. |
||
| 15 |
Custom Analysis |
Candidates can be truncated or
removed from the event structure (to enable re-reconstruction, etc) |
No problems dropping
List<Xxx> lists. Could add feature to drop individual reco
objects if desired. |
||
| 16 |
Code Development |
Ditch MakeCandidate function and
allow one Alg to create N cands. |
Agree. Always felt awkward about
having AlgXxx and AlgXxxList. In the proposed framework Algorithms
return List<Xxx> - i.e. lists of objects. |
||
| 17 |
Code Development |
Able to keep mulitple copies of
an event, e.g. same event processed two different ways, in same
mom. Should also be able to have a reliable selection method. |
Also orthogonal to the proposal
and could be easily implemented. |
||
| 18 |
Documentation! |