[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Peter Troeger]

> 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?

Ok, I scanned the IDL / OO-binding discussions of the last 12 months.  
At some point in time, we decided (informally) to concentrate the IDL  
spec on languages with support for 'OO' features. This was reasoned  
by two facts:

- The C binding already relies on the language-independent spec.
- The language-independent 1.0 spec and the IDL 1.0 spec are  
equivalent and exist side-by-side.

Therefore, all C-like languages (BTW, which else do we have?) can  
rely on the language-independent spec.

The other solution might be to add a special section for C-like  
languages in the IDL spec. This section could introduce the necessary  
additional constructs (like ERROR_NO_MORE_ELEMENTS) and rules  
(mapping of exception names to error code names).

Regards,
Peter.