1 / 19

DisplayWall Software Architecture

DisplayWall Software Architecture. Yuqun Chen, Grant Wallace, Kai Li. Motivation. We’ve achieved high resolution Next stage: multiple active surfaces many types of inputs new ways of interacting with the surfaces new ways to visualize information Stanford’s Interactive Space.

melanie-mueller
Download Presentation

DisplayWall Software Architecture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DisplayWall Software Architecture Yuqun Chen, Grant Wallace, Kai Li

  2. Motivation • We’ve achieved high resolution • Next stage: • multiple active surfaces • many types of inputs • new ways of interacting with the surfaces • new ways to visualize information • Stanford’s Interactive Space

  3. New Application Framework • aware of multiple surfaces • aware of multiple inputs • aware of reliability • allows dynamic grouping • aware of multiple platforms (PDA, laptop, PC)

  4. Future Applications • Collaborative Engineering • 3D models • 2D blue prints/maps • video conferencing • writing workspace (documents, code) • multiple simultaneous user inputs • different types of devices (laptop, PDA, etc.) • many apps work cooperatively

  5. Orthogonal Design Spaces • Multiple Applications • Multiple Inputs • Multiple Displays

  6. Desired Properties • Applications • multiple apps cooperate • take multiple inputs • scalable • Input • route many inputs to many apps • Display/System • multiple surface management • re-configurable and scalable • fault tolerance (timely recovery) • hardware/OS platform independent

  7. Application Space • Synchronization and communication • high-level events among multiple apps • large-scale data exchange • Select among multiple input events • system support for multiplexing inputs • Application-level adaptability • deal with join/leave on the fly • new site joins a video conferencing • bring the new app’s states up to date

  8. Application Scalability • Scalable to actual screen size & aspect ratio • e.g., imageviewer • Scalable with number of physical nodes • walk-through • load-balancing

  9. Inputs Space • Multiple physical inputs => one virtual inputs • (gyro-mouse, hand position) ==> virtual mouse • (PDA, keyboard, keyboard) ==> virtual keyboard • Multiple virtual inputs • flight simulator: captain and co-pilot

  10. Physical to Virtual Input Routing app virtual keyboard 1 PC keyboard virtual keyboard 2 wireless keyboard remote keyboard virtual mouse 1 mouse virtual mouse 2 app gyro virtual speech virtual body speech recog

  11. Display System Space • Surface (=virtual screen) management • which virtual screen to route application output • virtual screen space configuration/grouping • Per-surface reconfiguration • assign physical screens to a surface • surface resolution • Fault-tolerance • should not worry about connections • state recovery • Hardware/OS independent ==> LINUX

  12. Common Properties • Communication abstraction is the key • Sequencing of data/events • One-to-many: multicast • high-level app events, graphics primitives • Many-to-one: point-to-point • input devices • Avoid explicit connection management • Safe storage for fault tolerance

  13. Communication Choices [1] • MPI-style message passing • advantages • people are familiar with messages • virtual nodes • disadvantages: • mutual knowledge between send and receiver • even though physical nodes can change underneath • lack of a concept of a “shared space”

  14. Communication Choice [2] • Shared (Virtual) Memory • advantages • single shared memory space • at API level, no knowledge about the each others • disadvantages: • memory management from many nodes • platform dependent (big vs. small endian) • coherence may come at a high cost

  15. Communication Choices [3] • Linda-like tuple space (T Space) • a named storage space independent of any nodes • in(name, data), out(name)->data, read(name)->data • messages without direct sender-receiver knowledge • anybody can read from the space

  16. Virtual Frame Buffer/Pixelmap • Well-defined mappings between virtual areas and the physical memory/frame buffer • Coordinated access to the virtual space • everybody reads, barrier, then write • Multiple virtual frames to switch between

  17. Use of Virtual Pixelmap declare virtual map A and B optional: global frame update: A ==> B barrier() every node: read a region from A every node: write to B barrier() swap A and B barrier()

  18. X Server vs. VDD • X Window System • virtual screen management • multiple sources • multiple platforms • multiple inputs ?? • VDD (partially developed) • Windows Apps • smaller API

  19. Software Architecture app app App synchronization XML Virtual inputs rendering inputs OpenGL local VDD X Virtual FB mouse keyboard hand System communication

More Related