CEP 30 - Improvements to Cyclus Supply-Demand Framework #396
Conversation
source/cep/cep30.rst
Outdated
| ********************************************************* | ||
|
|
||
| :CEP: 30 | ||
| :Title: Improvements to Cyclus Supply-Demand Framework |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This title is vague and all-encompassing.
This CEP should be targeted at sharing financial parameters between the R-I-F hierarchy, and the title should be clear at this more narrow scope.
source/cep/cep30.rst
Outdated
| add economic information to archetypes themselves at the beginning of simulations. This was tested, | ||
| but it was discovered that there were problems accessing the information of parent agents, and it | ||
| was determined that this approach would be some combination of too cumbersome and less certain to | ||
| work. The second idea was to implement some sort of registry, similar to how Microsoft Windows |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure we need to focus on MS Windows as the model here.
This is also probably in addition to the Toolkit/code injection, but the code injection would include a facility for archetypes to register their ability to respond to financial requests in some globally accessible place.
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for writing up this CEP, @dean-krueger. This all seems reasonable to me, Looking at some of the other CEPs (and I'm not very familiar with this process so we may not be there yet), it looks like they have sections about documentation and specification & implementation. Would those come after this CEP has been accepted and completed?
Looking through CEP 1 some, I believe this would be a standards CEP.
The CEP 0 page of the website should also be updated to link to this file, so this CEP is easily found.
|
We haven't exercised this process in a long time @abachma2, so I think things are a little open to reinvention. It's perhaps a little complicated in that there is nominally a process of review after a draft has been published, but publishing a draft is also subject to a PR review here on GH. I think the idea is for the first published draft to be fairly well-formed so that the outside-github review of that (mailing list?) can be based on the substance and not in the weeds. |
Co-authored-by: Paul Wilson <[email protected]>
|
Sounds good, I accepted your date suggestion so it should be good to go! Thanks for taking a look at it everyone. |
|
Oh no - looks like this needs a rebase or something? |
After gathering informal community feedback, this is a more formal first draft of an official CEP on the website. I made sure it all displays correctly on a local spinup of the website I tested following the instructions in the README.