[jsdl-wg] Issues for All to Comment on

[claudio cacciari]

Donal K. Fellows wrote:

> 32) POSIXApplication/Executable cardinality (=1 vs <=1)
>
> On issue 32, my feeling is that having the Executable as optional is a
> good thing since this permits the processing engine to derive the
> executable name from the overall application name and version. I've
> known the same application be installed with multiple different names
> across multiple architectures within the same overall organization, some
> of which are non-trivial to guess[*], so concealing that sort of stuff
> from users is a distinctly good thing in my view. (Very few users want
> to know, and sometimes there are details of the job running process
> which we would prefer them not to see either.)
>
>
I agree.
Having the Executable as optional would help me to map JSDL docs to AJOs 
(Abstract Job Object of UNICORE).
UNICORE can derive the executable name from the overall application name 
and version.

Regards,
Claudio

==========================

Claudio Cacciari

High Performance System Group 

CINECA 

http://www.cineca.it   

==========================



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20050418/0e9d5a8d/attachment.htm