[DRMAA-WG] Java Language Bindings 1.0 Candidate 2

[Daniel Templeton]

Hmmm...  Let me rephrase that:

A DRMAA implementation is not required to be able to return all of the 
job state values in the JobProgramState enumeration.  If a given job state has no representation in the 
underlying DRMS, the DRMAA implementation MAY ignore that job state value.  All DRMAA implementations MUST, however, define the JobProgramState enumeration, and the definition MUST include *all* job state values, including those for unused job states.

Daniel

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