[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Daniel Templeton]

Peter,

Good idea. :)

Daniel

Peter Troeger wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>