Considerations for a group-wide Maker/framework (or why we are “bad”)
a Physics Working Group benefits from common framework (share technique/code, debug…)
… but keep it flexible!
“HBT” is extremely wide topic - variations/ideas on cuts/schemes/correlations are endless
framework limitations = lost productivity due to divergence/re-creating the wheel
group members’ efforts best spent on increased functionality available to all
? modularity/abstraction at all possible/“reasonable” levels
also: let people contribute!
e.g. tracksplitting tools,
often convenient to work at home/laptop w/o larger software overhead ? standalone capability
portability, generation of select datasets (e.g. K0s) for repeated analysis ? I/O capability (mDST)
identical “physics analysis” on pre-Geant / post-Geant / simulated / associated / real data
? Reader scheme & clean (invisible) interface to transient mDST StHbtEvent
efficiency (HBT is a hog): several studies or variations of a study at once
? naturally scalable collections of generic HBT objects
rapid cycle (compilation) of testing and inclusion of others’ work ? plug-n-play structure