Fwd (kielmann at cs.vu.nl): Re: [saga-rg] SAGA, object states, and concurrency

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Thilo, 


Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Aug 04 2006):
> 
> After all responses I have seen were about 1.3.6 and 1.3.8, can we assume
> 1.3.7 to be agreed upon?

1.3.7 is adressing deep/shallow copy behaviour - but it
might be that numberation changed meanwhile.

I reformulated 1.3.8. 'Object Life-Time' in terms of state
('Object State Life-Time').  That is probably closer to what
you want.  Hartmut and I discussed the topic once more, and
Hartmut proposed to formulate that in pre- and
post-conditions to method calls.  That would remove any
notion of language specifica, while keeping the general idea
in place.

I'd like to apply that notion to the text next week, and
lets see how you (and others) like it.  Is that ok with you?

Cheers, Andre.


PS.: I pondered about your remark in respect to code
snippets again, and I'm afraid that I strongly disagree
here: I think application level code and semantics is all
that matters to SAGA really.  I can throw in more perl
examples if you want, or C, to avoid the impression that its
all about C++ (which it isn't), but I definitely think that
testing the spec against simple use cases (that is what the
snippets are) is a must.


> > about 1.3.7.:
> > as I wrote earlier, this should simply become:
> > 
> > > The SAGA specification does NOT address issues of object life cycle 
> > > and memory management at all. It is subject to the language bindings
> > > of SAGA to define this in a way that suits the respective programming
> > > languages.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Thilo
-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield