[cad-linux] Re: CAD with server/client architecture
- From: phrostie <pfrostie@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cad-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 13:52:10 -0400
i have to admitt i was wondering as well, but after the below explanation i
like the idea. for areas that you have multipule people working on single
progects it would allow greater interaction. it might also,if i understand
correctly, allow the use of clusters.
On Friday 09 May 2003 13:20, you wrote:
> Since both of these posts seemed so much alike, i decided to combine
> them and contiue the thread under Rolf's much more accurate subject.
>
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 05:43:12PM +0200, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
> > You talked about client/server architecture. Could give me some more
> > information about that client/server idea? What should be the task of
> > the
> > server? Just data storage? Computing solutions for algorithms
> > (modeller)?=
> > =20
> > And of course, what would be the benefits for a user?
>
> and,
>
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 06:05:48PM +0200, rolfinternet@xxxxxx wrote:
> > What is the meaning of "CAD with client/server architecture"?
> > For me, this term is clear from applications of database.(i.e. ERP)
>
> What I mean by client/server for a cad application is mainly the
> seperation of the CAD engine from the user's interface. This seperation
> could mean that the engine runs on a server ( one instance for all the
> clients ) and the gui runs on a workstation, or they could both be
> running on the same machine.
>
> The server/engine would do the bulk of the work that wasn't directly
> related to the user interface. Such work would include calculations,
> database manipulations, etc...
>
> The client/user-interface would handle the interaction between the user
> and the engine. Its main task would be object rendering. It would also
> send manipulation requests (draw a line from point A to point B) to the
> server for processing.
>
> The benefits that I see in this approach are twofold:
>
> First, the user isn't tied into UI/toolkit that they don't want and/or
> aren't interested in. This is my problem with QCAD, I don't have any other
> programs that use QT, and I don't want to install QT just for one
> program. If the engine is seperated, then it is just a matter of writing
> an UI for the toolkit that you prefer. And if the functions used by the
> engine are well documented, then writing a UI should be fairly simple
> for someone familiar with that toolkit. I consider this the primary
> benefit of engine/interface seperation.
>
> Second, the client/server approach may allow UIs that don't require X.
> While I haven't fully thought out this possibility, it at least seems
> interesting.
>
> There are probably also benifits with regarding the engine as
> middleware, allowing one engine and one database to serve multiple
> clients.
>
> More important, in my opinion, is that the engine and UI be extensible
> to allow modules to be added for functions that apply to specific
> engineering disciplines. This however, may actually be made more
> difficult by a client/server architecture, but I'm not certain.
>
> I'm interested in hearing any and all comments (short of 'you are a
> dumb-a**) regarding these ideas.
>
> I'm also _extremely_ interested in laying or helping in laying the
> groundwork for Generic All-purpose CAD for Linux GACL (tm) :-)
> rather than seeing anymore YASCLs littering the abondonware road.
>
> Regards,
> Lee
--
Oh i've slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://pfrostie.freeservers.com/cad-tastrafy/
//www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux
Other related posts:
