[DRMAA-WG] IDL spec comments from GFSG

[Steven Newhouse]

Peter,

That's great to hear the other bindings are in the works. I'm obviously not expecting these to appear in full in the IDL spec. On reading it the motivation seemed to be 'very' Java oriented.

Steven

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Tröger [mailto:peter.troeger at hpi.uni-potsdam.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:32 AM
> To: Steven Newhouse
> Cc: drmaa-wg at gridforum.org; Greg Newby
> Subject: Re: [DRMAA-WG] IDL spec comments from GFSG
>
>
> 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.