[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Daniel Templeton]

Peter,

Sorry.  I leaped before looking.  The text that I was expecting to find 
is under the SESSION_ALL description.  I think it would be useful to 
replicate that text under the control() method as well, or perhaps more 
it there completely.

Daniel

Daniel Templeton wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I thought that we had also agreed that there should be some text 
> explicitly discussing what happens (or is not guaranteed to happen) 
> when a control(SESSION_ALL) call fails.  I don't see that in the 
> control() method description.
>
> Daniel
>
> Daniel Templeton wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> You are not wrong about the DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_MORE_ELEMENTS being only 
>> for non-object-oriented language-without-native-lists bindings.  The 
>> IDL spec should, however, include enough detail to make it possible 
>> to generate the various other language bindings, including the non-OO 
>> bindings.  (The reference to the error in the Java spec it to say 
>> that is has no mapping.)
>>
>> OK.  Now I'm confused.  I just looked through the latest IDL spec, 
>> and I no longer see the references to what to do when your language 
>> doesn't have exceptions or what to do when your language is not 
>> introspective.  Has the IDL spec become the OO, introspective IDL 
>> spec, i.e the C#/Java spec?
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> Peter Troeger wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>      
>>>> I have discovered a couple of errors in the 0.7.1 spec, mostly  
>>>> related to exceptions.  I also added a separate table for  
>>>> correlating IDL exceptions to Java exceptions.  Hopefully I have  
>>>> now also completely removed all uses of the old (pre-0.4) naming  
>>>> from the spec.
>>>>           
>>> Great. I also got some feedback for IDL spec from HPI people, but  
>>> mostly regarding formulations. I will release the final document  
>>> after christmas, if there are no more issues found by somebody else  
>>> on the list.
>>>
>>>      
>>>> There is now one open issue that I will need to resolve with  
>>>> Peter.  I believe that we agreed to add a NoMoreElementsException  
>>>> to the IDL spec to be thrown from the cursor functions instead of  
>>>> InvalidArgumentException when the iterator is exhausted.  I do 
>>>> not,  however, see that error code listed in the currect IDL spec, 
>>>> and I  can't get to the tracker site at the moment to confirm my  
>>>> recollection.  For now, the Java spec references this missing 
>>>> error  code.  If it turns out that I am misremembering the 
>>>> decision  regarding this error code, I will remove the reference 
>>>> before I  make the Java spec final.
>>>>           
>>> I am somehow confused. I thought the NO_MORE_ELEMENTS error is only  
>>> needed for the string vector helper functions in the C binding. 
>>> Java  and friends have native vector types, so there is simply no 
>>> need for  the helper functions, and therefore also no need for this 
>>> error.  Right ?!?
>>>
>>> Peter.
>>> -- 
>>>   drmaa-wg mailing list
>>>   drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>>>       
>>
>> -- 
>>   drmaa-wg mailing list
>>   drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>>   
>
>