[drmaa-wg] RE: Latest OO binding spec v0.3

[Rajic, Hrabri]

I have gone thru the spec.  It is in a very good shape for version 0.3.

Introspection, page 3 is both a blessing and a curse.  We need standard
mechanisms, getters and setters for C++.  There are few other places
also mentioning just introspection, but Peter has marked few of them.

Checked/unchecked exception list needs consensus.  C++ seems to be
different here too, isn't it?

Comma delimited return strings needs to be converted to StringList
everywhere.

Should we reference DRMAA 1.0 spec?  How much info OO doc needs from the
1.0 spec?  If not much, it could be a good idea to make it spec 1.0
independent

    -Hrabri
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Troeger [mailto:peter.troeger at hpi.uni-potsdam.de] 
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:23 PM
To: Rajic, Hrabri
Cc: DRMAA Working Group
Subject: Latest OO binding spec v0.3

Attached you can find the latest version 0.3 of the OO-binding spec. 
Sorry for being so late, but Dan and me discussed the last changes 
several hours ago ;-)

Regards,
Peter.


Rajic, Hrabri schrieb:

>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
>