[CLAM] Calling processings before the Do

[David Garcia]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Xavier Amatriain wrote:

> Hi, I will give you my opinion although it is a complex question.
>
> > The first, question is that, before any Do i must compute a kernel
> > (matrix), once i know the configuration parameters. Which should be the
> > correct place? ConcreteStart? ConcreteConfigure?
>
> Complex structural and costly operations should be set at configure
> time, therefore it should go to ConcreteConfigure. Nevertheless there
> might be some related initializations (imagine for instance resetting
> some matrix coefficients) that for convenience could be set in the
> ConcreteStart.

Ok. So:
ConcreteConfigure: Configuration dependand task not in ConcreteStart
ConcreteStart: Any initialization in order to clear the state

My case is the first one. It is just a matrix it doesn't need to be reset
because it is data independent.

Maybe we should do these cases more extenses and put the criteria in some
kind of FAQ. 'Where i put some initialization code for a processing?'.
Some alternative cases are:
 - Resource locking and unlocking (for example, audio devices)
 - Initialization independent on the configuration (guess: constructor?)
 - Initialization dependent on the connections (is that allowed?)


> > The second related question is that this precomputation is done by appying
> > the FFT to some constant data depending on the configuration. So, how i
> > should deal this FFT calling before the Do. Should i create one fft object
> > on configuration time and call Configure-Start-Do-Stop? Is worth, lazy
> > initialization for the matrix?
>
> My guess here is that you should actually not only have two different
> Processings but really two different "networks" both of them with
> different configuration and execution times. You should try to keep all
> Processings in a network synchronized in that respect (all Processings
> in a Network should be configured, started... at the same time).

ok. That seems logical. I'll do that.

> As I said this is my opinion and it admits discussion ;)

I couldn't say that i wouldn't discuss someone discussing what you said.
B-I)

David.