[drmaa-wg] Session Required?

[Rajic, Hrabri]

We could question if DRMAA_ERRNO_DRM_COMMUNICATION_FAILURE error code
for job template allocation/deallocation implies
DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION error is also needed.  While the former
error is reasonable and allows certain degree of flexibility in
implementations the latter is very likely to not be needed.
>From C language standpoint both of the above codes are not necessary,
i.e. job attributes objects should exist outside sessions and DRM run
times.

A better question would be is there a DRM system that requires a session
before jt could be created that we need to support.  

My recollection is failing me of we intended things to be as they are.

In OO languages that could depend on the classes organization.  If jt
object belongs to a session object it might require established session
because of its hosting object.  Using the above analysis I would argue
that there is no need for DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION errors to be
returned by jt methods.

Could you clarify things Dan?

    -Hrabri
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of Andreas Haas
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 6:50 AM
To: DRMAA Working Group
Subject: Re: [drmaa-wg] Session Required?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Daniel Templeton wrote:

> I'm in the job template section of the C binding now, and I noticed
that
> none of the functions there return DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION.  Is
> that intentional?  If so, I need to fix the Java language binding
spec.

I believe it is not intensional.

With C binding in mind one one could argue it is unlikely a session
is needed before those functions can be used. But Java binding clearly
indicates those C functions must be allowed to return
DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION.

Regards,
Andreas