[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Daniel Templeton]

Peter,

One more comment.  The text in the wait() description that says that 
after a successful call to wait(), all subsequent calls to wait will 
fail, should probably say that all subsequent calls to wait(), 
synchronize(), control(), and getJobProgramStatus() will fail.

Daniel

Daniel Templeton wrote:
> 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
>>>   
>>>       
>>     
>
> --
>   drmaa-wg mailing list
>   drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>