[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GWL as a build-automation
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: GWL as a build-automation |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:00:09 +0200 |
Hi,
I am late to the party. :-)
On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 at 10:50, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> wrote:
> It is not entirely surprising to me that the GWL can express this,
> because it has really simple abstractions: that of a process and that of
> a workflow consisting of processes.
[...]
> Perhaps there is space for a different tool that takes lessons from the
> GWL and Scsh alike, with a focus on command composition and shell
> abstractions. Perhaps that tool already exists and is called Metabash:
>
> https://github.com/artyom-poptsov/metabash
>From my understanding, metabash allows to remotely run processes, i.e.,
distribute the pipeline. Somehow, it could be see as an extension of
Scsh.
However, a pipeline is a linear sequence of processes. When a workflow
is a DAG of processes. Therefore, it would appear difficult to me to be
able to express a build-system using only pipelines.
Last, it appears to me expected that GWL could be considered as a
build-system. A scientific workflow system [1] (as GWL) is just a
specialized implementation to deal with a graph of dependencies.
Software folks speak about the venerable Make as build automation
workflow, while bioinfo folks speak about a specific Python
implementation SnakeMake as data analysis workflow. Just the same
concepts but viewed by different communities. :-)
If I might, an interesting analysis of different strategies for dealing
with the graph of dependencies is done in the paper «Build systems à la
carte» [2]. It presents the various abstractions using Haskell
notations.
1: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_workflow_system>
2: <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796820000088>
Cheers,
simon
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: GWL as a build-automation,
zimoun <=