[DRMAA-WG] DRMAA2 Draft 6, next steps, no conf call

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Mariusz,

some comments inlined :-)

Cheers, Andre.


2011/6/23 Mariusz Mamoński <mamonski at man.poznan.pl>:
>
> "The load value MUST be always within the <0;1> range (inclusive). The
> value 0 should indicate that machine is idling, while the 1 that all
> computing units are used"

Sounds sensible to me, although I have often seen load values >1,
mostly indicating that a machine is overloaded.  You may want to
change the MUST into a SHOULD thus?


> line 1069: Should we state that is enough that session names must be
> unique for tuple (DRMS,user)
>
> line 1097: Should we explicitly mention when one can call the
> destroySession ? If yes i would propose "only for not opened session".

These two items together imply that it is an error if I open a session
in one application instance, and destroy it in another instance which
runs at the same time.  Which instance will show the error?  Both?
How is synchronization done?

The fundamental problem seems to be that the spec introduces stateful
sessions which do not (necessarily) have any state management in the
backend.  If you library itself is maintaining the state, you will
introduce race conditions.


Cheers, Andre.


-- 
Nothing is ever easy...