<html>
<head>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">David and all,<br>
<br>
Yes, good point. Even back when I was working on the now-defunct
version of the hits code, the BCAL hits section was in a confusing
state. There were multiple redundant schemes for representing
hits, with some tags in the output hddm schema actually containing
the string "deprecated" as I recall. Getting this straightened
out before the transition seems like a must-do.<br>
<br>
-Richard J.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/31/2013 3:34 PM, David Lawrence wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:510AD56A.7040208@jlab.org" type="cite">
Hi All,<br>
<br>
One thing to keep in mind is that the BCAL simulation had a
significant revision done last fall that was disabled soon after
implementation. The disabling was to be a temporary measure until
someone was able to work on the BCAL reconstruction to make it use
the new simulation data format (not a 1 hour task). If we freeze
GEANT3 now, both BCAL simulation algorithms will need to be ported
to GEANT4. Even the disabled one. I'm not arguing that we
shouldn't do it now. Just that Richard should be aware<br>
that this will be a part of the task.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
-David<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/30/13 4:25 PM, Curtis A. Meyer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:46600B1D-1B34-4CF4-821C-4239A3319158@cmu.edu" type="cite">It feels to me that it would be a good time to
freeze GEANT3 and force a migration to GEANT4. We have
<div>a lot to do with our data challenge right now that will
keep us busy without doing things to GEANT, and</div>
<div>as Matt said, getting this done now may well be our last
chance to do it in a sensible way that minimizes</div>
<div>work being done twice when we get data.</div>
<div> Curtis<br>
<div apple-content-edited="true">
<div>
<div>-------</div>
<div>Prof. Curtis A. Meyer Department
of Physics</div>
<div>Phone: (412) 268-2745 Carnegie
Mellon University</div>
<div>Fax: (412) 681-0648
Pittsburgh, PA 15213</div>
<div><a href="mailto:curtis.meyer@cmu.edu">curtis.meyer@cmu.edu</a>
<a href="http://www.curtismeyer.com/">http://www.curtismeyer.com/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Matthew Shepherd wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
Hi software gurus,<br>
<br>
Many years ago we decided that migrating to Geant4 was
not a high priority for our software activities,
although our software was intentionally designed to
facilitate a migration at a later date. With the
generation of the first data challenge now under our
belt, I wonder if we want to revisit this decision?<br>
<br>
I think there are two main reasons to consider making a
switch:<br>
<br>
Running CERNLIB on modern operating systems is a real
headache. I know there are working solutions that allow
us to function, but they work on only some OS'es and
involve downloading patched code a private developer.
CERNLIB has no official support and overall this
results in a net productivity loss for us since we
depend on it and it generates a lot of frustration for
people trying to get our software running.<br>
<br>
The second, more significant reason is that, if we are
going to switch to Geant4, we want to have fully made
the transition to Geant4 by the time we start taking
data. One of the most time consuming and challenging
aspects of analyses is understanding the systematic
uncertainties in efficiency due to the fact that the
Monte Carlo isn't a perfect model of the detector. We'd
like to only go through this once: we don't want to do
it once for Geant3 and then again for Geant4. Geant3 is
fine for the exercises we are doing now, but if we're
ever going to make the switch, it would be wise to do it
well before we start taking data.<br>
<br>
Of course it is always easy for someone to propose work
when that person is not the one actually doing the work!
The burden would fall on the Geant expert (or experts,
do we have more than one?) in our group. I know that
Richard reported last year that significant progress had
been made in porting code to Geant4. <br>
<br>
Maybe we can bring this up for discussion at a future
software meeting or discuss more through this email
thread. Maybe the right answer is that it is still not
a high priority item -- I think it merits a little
discussion again though. (Maybe you already talked
about it during one of the many software meetings I
missed last fall!) <br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Halld-offline mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Halld-offline@jlab.org">Halld-offline@jlab.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline</a><br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Halld-offline mailing list
<a href="mailto:Halld-offline@jlab.org">Halld-offline@jlab.org</a>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Halld-offline mailing list
<a href="mailto:Halld-offline@jlab.org">Halld-offline@jlab.org</a>
<a href="https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline">https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/halld-offline</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>