[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Peter Troeger]

I added an explicit reference to the SESSION_ALL description in the  
control() and synchronize() text blocks. This avoids triplication of  
the error condition description.

Peter.


Am 23.12.2006 um 00:20 schrieb 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
>>>
>>
>>
>