[drmaa-wg] XgridDRMAA overview

[Andreas Haas]

Dear Ed,

while I agree on a technical level with you, I must say license
questions must be taken little bit more serious:

Releasing SISSL licensed code derivatives under Apache License for
sure is not allowed. The source components you refer below were
released under SISSL

   http://gridengine.sunsource.net/project/gridengine/Gridengine_SISSL_license.html

and there is a viable proceeding for contributing enhancements such as
yours, if required. Thus, for the time being, please let us assume any
change required for Xgrid DRMAA simply would be contributed back to Grid
Engine open source project.

My point is: Doing it this way possibly appears somewhat cumbersome,
but the Google SoC requirements can't disallow it. Just imagine you
would work on a project that requires (amongst other things) some
Linux kernel module be modified: I believe it is needless to say those
changes would not become available under Apache license, but under
GNU public license.

With regards to your question about the C-binding-detour: A C binding
for Xgrid as by-product certainly were very welcome as it would get Perl,
Python and Ruby bindings nearly for free. Wouldn't also the extend of
changes required to com.sun.grid.drmaa be minimal for similar reasons?

Best regards,
Andreas

Sun Microsystems GmbH       |            ++49 +941 3075-131
Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Str. 7       |                N1 Grid Engine
D-93049 Regensburg/Germany  | System Engineering Group Lead

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Ed Baskerville wrote:

> Thanks for the pointer!
>
> I *was* planning on reusing the org.ggf.drmaa classes--no reason not to.
>
> Reading that entry, it looks like I could mostly reuse the
> com.sun.grid.drmaa classes (put into a package named, for the time
> being, com.edbaskerville.xgrid_drmaa), and the JNI wrapper to the C
> binding, resulting in something like this:
>
> (((Objective-C/Cocoa implementation) wrapped in C binding) wrapped in
> standard JNI)
>
> versus the planned
>
> ((Objective-C/Cocoa implementation) wrapped in new JNI)
>
> The latter is more compact; the former probably a much quicker route
> to a working system, probably with not much overhead. Sounds like the
> former is probably a better way to go; I'll look through the code to
> see for sure.
>
> That said, are there any licensing issues with using modified Sun
> open source code? Google requires that I release my code under the
> Apache License--any reason why this would be a problem?
>
> --Ed
>
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 4:23 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
>
> > Just finished reading it... A question on "Java DRMAA Implementation:
> > wrap the Cocoa implementation in Java...."
> >
> > Are you planning to write a Java binding from scratch??
> >
> > I remember Dan put together this a while ago:
> >
> > Porting the DRMAA Java Language Binding:
> > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/templedf?
> > entry=porting_the_drmaa_java_language
> >
> > Rayson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/4/06, Ed Baskerville <lists at edbaskerville.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As I believe Andreas forwarded to this list, I'm doing an Xgrid
> >> implementation of DRMAA as part of a Google Summer of Code project.
> >> I've written up a brief overview of the system on my blog:
> >>
> >> http://code.edbaskerville.com/2006/06/04/xgriddrmaa-overview/
> >>
> >> Take a look, and let me know if you have any suggestions. I plan to
> >> start implementing it this week; the Subversion repository will be
> >> available for anyone to browse online or check out.
> >>
> >> --Ed
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>