[SAGA-RG] minutes from the OGF21 session on the Java language binding

[Andre Merzky]

Some comments below

Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Oct 18 2007):
> 
> timeout values:
> --------------
> numeric constants such as "nowait" and "waitforever" shall be used instead
> of 0 and -1

A side comment in the session was that this would be useful
for C++ as well - I agree.


> tasks:
> -----
> 
> this interface (group) seemingly needs more attention
> 
> it is suggested to check whether future objects from the concurrency library
> could be used.
> the RVTask looks very much like a future
> 
> the asymmetry between run() and waittask() should be resolved

An comment here was, too, that this might not be easy, as
wait() is reserved, and runtask() would be unconventional
(as run() is usually used in Java for runnables).

Another comment from Dan was that method templates/generics
should work in Java 5, e.g.:

  saga::file f = ...;
  saga::task t = f.get_size    <Async>   ();
  ssize_t    s = t.get_result  <ssize_t> ();

okok, that is C++, but the point is that something similar
is supposedly working in Java as well.


> CPI, adaptor interface:
> ----------------------
> 
> The audience suggests to add an SPI (service provider interface) as part
> of the Java language binding (currently called CPI in the JavaGAT)
> This could allow for a standardized adaptor interface, and thus adaptor
> reuse.
> Good examples for such an API/SPI combinations are: JAXP, LDAP, DRMAA

To simplify the documents, and to allow for implementations
which do not use the SPI, we could split that in two
documents?

Same holds for C++, where we wee encouraged to formally nail
down the CPI, to allow for exchangable adaptors.

Cheers, Andre.

-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.