[jsdl-wg] Issues for All to Comment on

[Andreas Savva]

I too prefer making this optional.

claudio cacciari wrote:
> 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


-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd