Difference between revisions of "API Design"

From VistrailsWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
*** This is what I get from TE's description above
*** This is what I get from TE's description above
*** Why do we need this?
*** Why do we need this?
* [DK]
** Agree with RR that the general VT API focus should be used for embedding/extending/controlling VisTrails
** The current API combines some stateful commands (new_vistrail/execute_workflow) with the script-based workflow construction
** We need to improve this; I think there is too much that has to be done with the controller right now.
** WRT the module scripting API TE proposes, I think this is mostly orthogonal
*** I see TE's point that running a module outside of the workflow structure is not straightforward right now
*** This could be another focus and would be specifically for the scripting work
* [RR]
** Example target: [http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/remram44/a59a6dbf2026a0433ede notebook]<br>
** Right now: [http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/remram44/9454edf54d58909ee69b core api], [http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/remram44/242bd94bd298057ff750 with gui] (disregard [8])
Problems:
* [https://www.vistrails.org/ticket/660#comment:1 Sort out 'mode' options]
* ([https://www.vistrails.org/ticket/840 #840 IPython integration])
* [https://www.vistrails.org/ticket/884 #884 Enabled packages in configuration shouldn't affect API or batch-mode]
* [https://www.vistrails.org/ticket/886 #886 Sometimes the controller's change_selected_version() needs from_root=True from unknown reasons]
* [https://www.vistrails.org/ticket/892 #892 Log propagation in vistrails]
Work in progress on branch <tt>new-api</tt>. [http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/remram44/2a67e6269ba2f052a19d Notebook].

Latest revision as of 17:22, 6 August 2014

This page is for discussing changes to the vistrails API. Specifically to make it easier to use with scripting.

  • Create layered API with interactive API on top of scripting?
    • [TE]
      • I don't see how this would work. For scripts, the way we are currently thinking about them, would not interface strongly with vistrails. What we currently have is a vistrail api. For scripting, I would like to have just a module API with an executeModule method that:
        • Sets parameters and inputs
        • Creates and executes a vistrails module
        • Makes outputs available
      • In a script we only need to call modules. Is there other things we would like to do?
      • We could also have a more integrated version of scripts where provenance is recorded? But this would require more control of the python script.
  • [RR]
    • API for embedding/extending/controlling VisTrails
      • Would be used by other tools like DAT, and packages like the spreadsheet which interact strongly with VisTrails
      • Would probably resemble what we currently have
      • Can be a bit more involved (and unstable?)
    • "library" API, used in scripts to create/load/run pipelines or vistrails (+ IPython magics)
    • API for generated scripts, used to run modules that couldn't be translated
      • This is what I get from TE's description above
      • Why do we need this?
  • [DK]
    • Agree with RR that the general VT API focus should be used for embedding/extending/controlling VisTrails
    • The current API combines some stateful commands (new_vistrail/execute_workflow) with the script-based workflow construction
    • We need to improve this; I think there is too much that has to be done with the controller right now.
    • WRT the module scripting API TE proposes, I think this is mostly orthogonal
      • I see TE's point that running a module outside of the workflow structure is not straightforward right now
      • This could be another focus and would be specifically for the scripting work

Problems:

Work in progress on branch new-api. Notebook.