This resolves a long-standing issue:
we could not use proper include paths for test-helper code that was defined alongside the tests.
Since some test-helper code must now be relocated into the »Vault«-Layer,
I took the opportunity to finally resolve this annoyance. The solution is two-fold
* introduce a dedicated test-support library
* remove the quirks that were necessary to support some plain-C tests
Together, this allows to raise the include-directory by one level,
and then to adjust all folder names so that they match the namespace
The next step with the `BufferProvider` and `OutputSlot` refactoring
will require to create new definition headers and to move those self-contained
services down into the »Vault« layer. In preparation, I decided deliberately to
abandon that old idea of a ''minimal bootstrap'' of arbitrary components in
favour of building the application as a coherent whole, with well-defined
boundaries and a backbone structure, marked as such explicitly by name
and arrangement of the code.
The changes were documented and applied to the integration branch first,
and now it's time to join that effort with the ongoing work on `BufferProvider`.
During the last months, a lot of gradual changes to policies and guidelines
had been finalised and documented. Moreover, recent clarifications regarding
memory management in the render engine will lead to a clearer definition
of the »Vault« Layer's role, with some ''engine code'' expected to move down.
On this occasion, I reworked relevant sections in the documentation to
confirm the role that now falls to central parts of the overall architecture.
Notably I decided to rename those parts related to the application backbone
as »Vessel« — to underpin the more active and defining role they assumed.
In the end I refrained from applying most of the changes I had intended.
I am aware that `BufferProvider` is still quite a massive structure,
yet with the implementation refactorings done thus far, it seems
to be reasonably clear and self-contained now.
It would be possible to totally overthrow the grown structure and
expose only the two handles (BuffDescr and BuffHandle), together with
a factory function, but I cannot see how this would help to make the
code clearer and more approachable. Maybe it would make the usage
more obvious from the client's perspective — yet, to be honest,
there are not ''that much clients'' to justify such a move.
Furthermore, the implementation is far from finished: for both of
the back-end lines, a fully production-strength implementation
must be created, that is able to operate in a highly concurrent
environment; very likely some lock-free messaging and hand-over
between threads will become necessary, adding to the complexity.
Thus it seems better to note the ''design critique'', but to
postpone any further refactorings to a point where we can watch
a fully developed Render Engine under production load.
* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
It turns out that the real (not mocked) implementation of JobTicket creation
is already required now for this planned (mock)Dispatcher setup;
moreover, this real implementation turns out to be almost identical
to the mock implementation written recently -- just nested structure
of prerequiste JobTickets need to be changed into a similar structur
of ExitNodes
-- as an aside: rearrange various tests to be more in-line
with the envisioned architecture of playback and engine
...hard to tackle...
The idea is to wrap the TreeExplorer builder, so that our specific
builder functions can delegated to the (inherited) generic builder functions
and would just need to supply some cleverly bound lambdas. However,
resulting types are recursive, which does not play nice with type inference,
and working around that problem leads to capturing a self reference,
which at time of invocation is already invalidated (due to moving the
whole pipeline into the final storage)
