[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Daniel Templeton]

Uh...  I was supposed to send out a proposal on wording for some 
addition to the IDL spec, per the con call today, but I am no longer 
certain what it was.  Was it the optional drmaa_job_ps states?  If so, 
here it is:

A DRMAA implementation is not required to be able to return all of the 
described jobs states.  If a given state has no representation in the 
underlying DRMS, the DRMAA implementation is free to ignore that state.

Daniel

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