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

[Mariusz Mamoński]

2011/6/23 Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>:
> 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?

i basically wanted to avoid situation that this value is "number of
core specific" ;-)

>
>
>> 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?

I think opening the same session **concurrently** in two application
falls into "invalid usage".



>
> 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...
>



-- 
Mariusz