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

[Daniel Templeton]

Does basing the Java language binding on the OO spec make it not
officially DRMAA compliant?  I'm really confused.  If we can base
language bindings on the OO spec instead of the DRMAA spec, then why are
we having this long debate about how to get the DRMAA spec updated so we
can do the C spec correctly?  Couldn't we just base the C spec on the OO
spec, too?  Maybe there's something I don't know about our current
approach to get GGF document process...

Daniel

Rajic, Hrabri wrote:

>I would like us to move on, so OO is preferable.
>
>    -Hrabri
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
>Of Daniel Templeton
>Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:32 PM
>Cc: DRMAA Working Group
>Subject: Re: [drmaa-wg] RE: Latest OO binding spec v0.3
>
>Which spec do you think the Java language binding should adhere to?  The
>language independent spec or the OO spec?  There are both technical and
>political reasons for both choices, and the choices are/will be mutally
>exclusive.
>
>Daniel
>
>Rajic, Hrabri wrote:
>
>  
>
>>We should simplify our life a bit.
>>
>>If we make the OO doc independent of/not referencing DRMAA v1.0 spec,
>>all the nice things that were impractical to do in that doc could be
>>rolled in.
>>
>>   -Hrabri
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Daniel Templeton [mailto:Dan.Templeton at Sun.COM] 
>>Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:49 PM
>>To: Rajic, Hrabri
>>Cc: DRMAA Working Group
>>Subject: Re: [drmaa-wg] RE: Latest OO binding spec v0.3
>>
>>Rajic, Hrabri wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The intention is to provide guidance for both introspective and
>>non-introspective languages.  Please point out anywhere the
>>non-introspective bit is missing.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Checked/unchecked exception list needs consensus.  C++ seems to be
>>>different here too, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>As far as I know, Java is the only major language that makes that
>>distinction.  Smalltalk probably does too, since Java is borrowed many
>>concepts from that language, but I don't forsee a Smalltalk binding
>>anytime soon.  This is a Java language binding issue, but since the OO
>>spec is trying to accomodate everyone, it has to explicitly make
>>allowances for all the outliers.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Comma delimited return strings needs to be converted to StringList
>>>everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Uh...  That's not consistent with the DRMAA 1.0 spec.  I really dislike
>>what the 1.0 spec does, but this is one of those hot topics that will
>>    
>>
>be
>  
>
>>difficult to change.  I have brought it up before, only to be told that
>>since it took so much bloodshed to reach an agreement in the first
>>place, we should never revisit it.  I personally see that part as the
>>worst part of the 1.0 spec and would love to reopen the discussion.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>This goes to my previous point.  I have always forseen the OO spec as
>>the source for the DRMAA 2.0 spec.  In that regard, it should not be
>>bound by the DRMAA 1.0 spec.  However, since the OO spec is affecting
>>changes in the Java and .Net specs, and we're holding the Java and .Net
>>specs to the DRMAA 1.0 standard, the OO spec cannot break 1.0.
>>
>>Daniel
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
***************************************************
*        Daniel Templeton   ERGB01 x60220         *
*       Staff Engineer, Sun N1 Grid Engine        *
***************************************************
* "Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads." *
*                    -Dr. Emmett Brown            *
*                     Back to the Future (1985)   *
***************************************************