[drmaa-wg] Additional error for C binding

[Daniel Templeton]

I knew you'd think that. :)

I actually think that truncating the id is a better solution than
returning an error code, *IF AND ONLY IF* that behavior is clearly
described in the C binding specification.

Daniel

Roger Brobst wrote On 10/12/05 13:42,:
> I think the spec should specify some constant like
> DRMAA_JOBID_BUFFER and the implementation should
> truncate the output string if a sufficient buffer
> is not provided.
> 
> I do not think this omission merits breaking the
> existing C-Lang API or rehashing the underlying
> discussion about memory management.
> 
> -Roger
> 
> 
> In a previous e-mail, Peter Troeger wrote:
> 
>>Oh, Dan is now back on US time. I am the only remaining person
>>working at night on DRMAA ;-)
>>
>>If we can agree on the last proposal from Dan, I could add an
>>according test to the test suite. The first proposal would break
>>all existing implementations and applications.
>>
>>Hrabri, please but this on the agenda for the next phone conference,
>>together with the other new issues from the last mails. Somebody
>>might also add a tracker item.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Peter.
>>
>>Am 12.10.2005 um 21:44 schrieb Daniel Templeton:
>>
>>
>>>I think the SGE implementation just truncates the job id, but I'm not
>>>sure.  My vote would be, as Hrabri fell just short of suggesting, to
>>>drop the length parameter and make the buffer a char**.  I don't think
>>>we have an error code which adequately represents the described error
>>>condition, but I'd say Invalid Argument is the best we can do with  
>>>what
>>>we have.
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>>
>>>Rajic, Hrabri wrote On 10/12/05 12:20,:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is how the spec treats a similar parameter job_name:
>>>>
>>>>   DRMAA_JOBNAME_BUFFER = 1024.
>>>>
>>>>At the other place spec says:
>>>>
>>>>job name
>>>>A job name SHALL comprise alphanumeric and _ characters.
>>>>The drmaa-implementation SHALL NOT provide the client with a job
>>>>name longer than DRMAA_JOBNAME_BUFFER -1 (1023) characters.
>>>>The drmaa-implementation MAY truncate any client-provided job name
>>>>to an implementation-defined length that is at least 31 characters.
>>>>The attribute name is drmaa_job_name
>>>>
>>>>I think that the intent was to let the implementation provide  
>>>>adequate
>>>>space to job_id since it was not marked as an In parameter.  The app
>>>>would copy it in an adequate length buffer (incurring performance  
>>>>hit).
>>>>C-spec has done optimization here, but the adequate error code is now
>>>>missing in the language independent spec.
>>>>
>>>>Hrabri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On  
>>>>>Behalf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Troeger
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:53 PM
>>>>>To: DRMAA Working Group
>>>>>Subject: [drmaa-wg] Additional error for C binding
>>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>the DRMAA C-binding 1.0 defines an additional parameter for the
>>>>>string length (job_id_out_len) whenever job_id_out is part of the
>>>>>method signature. In the DRMAA spec, this is not considered - the
>>>>>string is simply marked as output argument. I would be interested
>>>>>what kind of error a DRMAA C-library should return of the buffer for
>>>>>the job_id_out parameter is too small: OUT_OF_MEMORY ?
>>>>>INVALID_ARGUMENT ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Peter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>