[drmaa-wg] C Binding Spec 0.98 and GWD-I Doc

[Rajic, Hrabri]

This is what I have done:

* Removed newly introduced DRMAA errors as agreed.

* Relabeled the v0.98 doc as 1.0.

* Rolled back few (good suggestions) from Peter to leave the 1.0 docs
aligned:
section 5.3.1, first "MUST"
section 5.3.1, first "SHOULD"
section 5.3.1, first "RECOMMENDED"
section 5.3.2, first "SHOULD"

For the reference, the above were suggested to be written is small
letters, but they made it to the Experience doc.

* Added Peter as an author at the back; we have simply overlooked to
consider this, especially since Dan has done that on the first page.

* Rebuilt the table of contents.

On the minor note
The C binding DRMAA errors and the ones in the 1.0 language independent
doc are not in the same order, DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION being the
culprit, but I have not changed that because the C binding doc reflects
what is in the drmaa.h file.

No attempt was made to consolidate the subsections, but we do not need
to worry about it, since GGF has a technical writer, who would do that
if needed.


I have downgraded the experience document to v0.98.  Since we do not
have the OO doc ready before the deadline, I am submitting the
experimental doc instead, in case we would like to give feedback to the
GFSC document process at GGF 13.  It was relabeled as Experimental which
might not be the final attribute.

In case the OO doc is sent my way today I will forward it to Stacey.

Both docs are attached.  PDF versions have been submitted for the GGF
13.

    -Hrabri
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of Daniel Templeton
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:05 AM
To: DRMAA Working Group
Subject: [drmaa-wg] C Binding Spec 0.98 and GWD-I Doc

Per my conversation my Andeas last night, I have removed the new job 
info structure and the DRMAA_PS_USER_SYSTEM_SUSPENDED constant from the 
C binding spec, as they are not allowed by the language independent 
spec.  I also made the changes suggested by Hrabri and Peter.  This is 
the new 0.98 spec.  This will likely be the 1.0 spec, mostly since there

isn't anymore time to argue about it.  Hrabri, if there are no other 
issues with the 0.98 spec, please relabel it 1.0 and submit it for
GGF13.

(The 0.98 spec does contain all the other changes that were in the 0.97 
spec.  This is because none of the other changes attempt to change the 
sematics of the lang ind spec.  Something that may be a problem is that 
the error codes listed in the 0.98 version go way beyond what was listed

in the lang ind spec.  If that is an issue, Hrabri, just delete them 
before submitting the doc as 1.0.)

Also per my conversation with Andreas, I used the 0.97 spec to build an 
Experiences document which contains our desire to have the two things I 
took out of the 0.98 spec.

Since we have no time to discuss this, I have simply done it.  I have to

wonder, however, how it is possible for the OO, .Net, and Java language 
bindings to use a job info struture (the JobInfo class), but the C 
binding isn't allowed to.  Before anyone gets any clever ideas, let me 
point out that the reason the Java language binding uses a job info 
structure is that Java does not allow multiple out parameters.  If we 
disallow job info structures in the binding docs, we disallow the Java 
language binding altogether.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft-ggf-drmaa-c-bindings-1.0.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 352256 bytes
Desc: draft-ggf-drmaa-c-bindings-1.0.doc
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/drmaa-wg/attachments/20050218/7fad20b2/attachment.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft-ggf-drmaa-c-bindings-gfe-0.98.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 381440 bytes
Desc: draft-ggf-drmaa-c-bindings-gfe-0.98.doc
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/drmaa-wg/attachments/20050218/7fad20b2/attachment-0001.doc