[SAGA-RG] python bindings

[M.A. Santcroos]

Hi Andre,

On 9/2/11 6:55 , "Andre Merzky" <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
>>Both implementations make extensive use of getters and setters which are
>> discouraged in Python.
>
>The SAGA spec requires that some objects, such as job description, do not
>allow
>free attributes (like 'my_jobclass = super'),

You won't technically prevent this by having getters and setters, but it
might have some social/practical effect.
There are ways to limit creation of new attributes (__slots__).

> and also restricts values several
>attributes can have.  Is that mappable to a python hashtable
>(dictoinary)? 
> If not, I would think that is the reason for setters and getters?

Yes, you can use properties for that.


>> The VU package structure seems to be closer to the spec.
>> The LSU bindings use "fork://" for localhost execution and the VU
>>bindings
>> use "local://".
>
>The URL semantics should not be part of the language binding - for
>good or for worse, that is an implementation detail....

True, but it still broke the compatibility, so I thought it was worth
mentioning.

>My $0.02:
>
>  - quickly (re-)agree on a common binding, whatever that is
>  - provide a thin wrapper around the C++ bindings, to be able
>    to maintain both for a time
>  - change the VU bindings to adhere to the agreement
>  - provide a common test suite for both (something along
>    the lines of Sylvain's interop tests)

Sounds like a plan.

If I have some time before the meeting I can come up with a proposal for
the common binding.

Cheers,

Mark