* 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.
* most usages are drop-in replacements
* occasionally the other convenience functions can be used
* verify call-paths from core code to identify usages
* ensure reseeding for all tests involving some kind of randomness...
__Note__: some tests were not yet converted,
since their usage of randomness is actually not thread-safe.
This problem existed previously, since also `rand()` is not thread safe,
albeit in most cases it is possible to ignore this problem, as
''garbled internal state'' is also somehow „random“
after completing the recent clean-up and refactoring work,
the monad based framework for recursive tree expansion
can be abandoned and retracted.
This approach from functional programming leads to code,
which is ''cool to write'' yet ''hard to understand.''
A second design attempt was based on the pipeline and decorator pattern
and integrates the monadic expansion as a special case, used here to
discover the prerequisites for a render job. This turned out to be
more effective and prolific and became standard for several exploring
and backtracking algorithms in Lumiera.
...as a preparation for solving a logical problem with the Planning-Pipeline;
it can not quite work as intended just by passing down the pair of
current ticket and dependent ticket, since we have to calculate a chained
calculation of job deadlines, leading up to the root ticket for a frame.
My solution idea is to create the JobPlanning earlier in the pipeline,
already *before* the expansion of prerequisites, and rather to integrate
the representation of the dependency relation direcly into JobPlanning
...using hard coded values instead of observation of actual runtimes,
but at least the calculation scheme (now relocated from TimeAnchor to JobPlanning)
should be a reasonable starting point.
TODO: test fails...
The initial implementation effort for Player and Job-Planning
has been reviewed and largely reworked, and some parts are now
obsoleted by the reworked alternative and can be disabled.
The basic idea will be retained though: JobPlanning is a
data aggregator and performs the final step of creating a Job
The existing implementation of the Player from 2012~2015 inclduded
an additional differentiation by media channel (for multichannel media)
and would build a separate CalcStream for each channel.
The in-depth analysis conducted for the ongoing »Vertical Slice« effort
revealed that this differentiation is besides the point and would never
be materialised: Since -- by definition -- all media processing has
to be done by the engine, also the generation of the final output format
including any channel multiplexing will happen in render nodes.
The only exception would be when only a single channel of multichannel
media is extracted -- yet this case would then translate into a
dedicated ModelPort.
Based on this reasoning, a lot of complexity (and some contradictions)
within the JobTicket implementation can be removed -- together with
some further leftovers of the fist attempt to build JobTickets always
from a Mock specification (we now use construction by the Segment,
based on an ExitNode, which is the expected actual implementation
for production setup)
...by defining a new scheme for access to custom allocators
...and then passing a reference to such an accessor into the
JobTicket ctor, thereby allowing the ticket istelf recursively
to place further JobTicket instances into the allocation space
--> success, test passes (finally)
Up to now, a draft/mock implementation was used, relying on a »spec tuple«,
which was fabricated by MockJobTicket. But with the introduction of
NodeGraphAttachment, the MockSequence now generates a nested ExitNode structure,
and thus the JobTicket will be created through the "real" ctor, and
no longer via MockJobTicket.
Thus it is possible to skip this whole interspersed »spec tuple«,
since ExitNode *is* already this aggregated / abstracted Spec
PROBLEM: can not implement Spec-generation, since
- we must use a λ for internal allocation of JobTickets
- but recursive type inference is not possible
Will thus need to abandon the Spec-Tuple and relocate this
traversal-and-generation code into JobTicket itself
Use another unit-test (FixtureSegment_test) to guide and cover
the transition from the existing fake-implementation to the
actual implementation, where the JobTicket will be generated
on-demand, from a NodeGraphAttachment
