From: Frank Geurts (geurts_at_rice.edu)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 02:19:38 EDT
dongx_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn wrote:
> Hi, Frank:
> Dr. Wu and I have modified the MuDstMaker code for TOF microdst data.
> We have two versions now :) You may look at the directory
> /star/u/dongx/work/TOFr/MicroDst-bak and MicroDst-bak1
> In the first version, MicroDst-bak/ , we assume the StTofHit in StEvent
> has been updated ( just in StRoot/StEvent ), and we fill them in the
> analysis maker (StTofrSimMaker, which should be renamed actually), and
> then dump them into TCloneArrays in StMuDstMaker.
Hi Xin and Jian,
great work ... but, you seem to loose the relation between the
associated track and the StTofHits while storing the data. Which makes
me wonder whether the StTofHit (or Slat/Cell for that matter) is really
suited to be literally passed on to the muDST: if we can't store a
pointer to the associated track then we are better of setting up the
PIDtraits for tof (as a branch of primary track) and filling them with
as much data as we have available. To first order that would be adc,
tdc, tray, cell/slat, (local) hitposition and depending on whether we
have calibration available or not non-zero values for the other members
of StTofHit.
> In the second one, MicroDst-bak1/ , we just use the StEvent in lib now,
> and add StMuTofCollection, StMuTofHitCollection and StMuTofHit in
> MuDstMaker directory. Here StMuTofHit is very similar to the coming
> StTofHit. And we also fill StMuTofCollection in analysis maker and fill
> them into Micro Dst event in StMuDstMaker.
> These two both work well, I think. You may have a look at the most recent
> MuDst.root file in the corresponding directory.
yep, both should do the job ... although I would prefer the first
approach which keeps MuDST related methods out of the analysis maker
-which, i guess, is just a matter of taste :)
> In either of these two, we need the analysis maker to give sufficient
> information according to the coming StTofHit, which means data should be
> calibrated already before filled into StTofCollection/StMuTofCollection.
like i mentioned earlier, calibration is not necessary as long as we
don't loose the relation between associated track and slat/cell data,
which is something we will be needing anyway!
On the other hand, we also need to store some pVPD related data (all 6
channels ADCs and TDCs, T0, ...) which does need to be done one a per
track basis.
> Would you please have a check before sent to the software guys? And also
> you should add the tofp analysis maker if you need.
agreed, but at the StTofHit and/or StTofPidTrait level there shouldn't
be any differences between tofp and tofr ;)
>
> I think we should make clear for our TOF softwares now, including
> TofCollection in StEvent, TofMaker(analysis tofp/tofr),
> TofSimMaker(tofp/tofr), TofUtil( geometry, parameters etc.), MiniDstMaker,
> MicroDstMaker, embedding maker etc. Which can be put into lib now? Which
> needs modification? and what we need more?
any news on the StTofrGeometry memory leaks?
cheers,
frank
>
> Any comments or suggestions?
>
> Best Regards!
>
> /xin
>
>>Zhangbu, how is Wu Chen's progress on the MuDST? What is his email
>>address?
>>
>>-f.
>>
>>
>>
>>Xu, Zhangbu wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Frank:
>>> Since we use FTPC as reference multiplicity in dAu, we need that
>>>information in miniDST. Do we have that? Maybe the easiest way is
>>>to put all the TOF information into MuDST.
>>>Thanks!
>>> Zhangbu
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 00:39:41 EDT