...
The tools that write FT1 or FT2 files use template files that define the keywords and many of the values, the extensions, etc. The way things are arranged now, any packaged that needs one of these template files has its own copy. For FT1, this means that we have 3 copies (which are not now currently all the same) in different packages (fitsgen, observationSim, and tip) and none of which is necessarily related to the current definitions of the FT1 and FT2 files that Masa maintains on the Web. FT2 template files are in 2 packages (fitsGen and observationSim).
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
The FT1 and FT2 files in fitsGen and observationSim may not be "necessarily related" to the current proposed definitions on Masa's page, but they are in fact related in a very real way since I copied them from Masa's links, changed the FT2 extension name back to "Ext1" since that value was hard-coded in several places in the ScienceTools code, and I removed the incorrect and extraneous DSS keywords that appeared in Masa's examples. As of 5 weeks ago, the FT1 and FT2 templates appearing the tagged versions of fitsGen and observationSim are the same. JC Oct 8, 2005 |
Jim proposed that we keep one copy of each of the template files in the same package and that all packages that need them look for them in this central location. Also, the definitions in the template files in the repository would be THE definitions, that presumably would be mirrored to the Web.
I think that this makes sense, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain why each of those packages needs the FT1 and/or FT2 templates in the first place.
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
The alternative to using template files is to set the required keywords in the code using lines like
thereby hard-wiring all of the keyword values in the compiled code. Under the present scheme, the code setting these keywords would be duplicated in all programs that had to write out these headers. JC Oct 8, 2005 |
Also, other packages have template files: e.g., evtbin has LatEnergyBinDef.tpl and LatTimeBinDef.tpl and pulsarDb has PulsarEph.tpl. I don't think that any other package will want to use these templates.
...
So, if it turns out that we really weren't using all 3 copies of the FT1 template file and both copies of the FT2 template, the question becomes whether we should put all of the template files in one package to be centrally maintained, I hope by someone like Masa. What do you think?
| Panel | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Under the present scheme, anybody that runs applications in fitsGen (makeFT1, makeFT2, makeFT2a) really does use the template files in that package, and anybody that uses the applications in observationSim (gtobssim, gtorbsim) really does use the template files in that package. Since the output of these applications are supposed to conform to the current FT1/FT2 standards no matter what version of the code is being run, it makes sense to put these files in one place and maintain these template files so that they conform to the accepted (not proposed) standard. JC Oct 8, 2005 |
Is there any convenient way to have the current versions of the template files linked to Masa's Web page of the FITS definitions of the Science Data Products? I think that the answer is only maybe. ViewCVS obviously could be used, if the revision number is known. For example, here is ft1.tpl from observationSim. Masa's Web pages have HTML versions of these templates, but with additional information that does not appear in the template file, including the formats of the values expected for each header keyword. So ViewCVS views of the template files could be expected to replace only part of Masa's pages.
...