[DRMAA-WG] IDL spec comments from GFSG

[Peter Tröger]

Steven Newhouse wrote:
>> What mappings to other languages should be considered (perhaps for
>> other documents)?"
> 
> Just to clarify my second comment... [BTW see these as early public
> comments. They are NOT being a blocker to the document going into
> public comment - we decided that (I thought) on the call on Tuesday.]
> 
> The IDL document makes it clear you what a mechanism for rendering
> into specific bindings... and you spend some space in the document
> showing it for Java. There is no demonstration (to the same level as
> the Java demonstration) how a binding in other languages would look.

Thanks for the clarification ! We have a ready-to-publish Java binding, 
based on the IDL spec. I have the outline of .NET and Python bindings, 
based on the IDL spec. And we ensured that the C binding also can be 
derived from the IDL spec. Perl and Ruby are also candidates, because 
they are somehow comparable to Python. I can give details about the 
mappings on the public comment page.

The fact is that DRMAA group decided to serialize the document 
submissions. Language bindings should rely on a publicly approved IDL 
spec, which itself relies on the DRMAA 1.0 grid recommendation. You can 
therefore expect several language binding submissions when the IDL spec 
reached 'proposed recommendation' status.

Regards,
Peter.