[jsdl-wg] Questions about JSDL specification
roy at cs.wisc.edu
Wed Aug 16 12:48:32 CDT 2006
At 09:54 AM 8/16/2006 +0100, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>Alain Roy wrote:
>>Michel Drescher wrote:
>>>So you may want to specify 3.14 for jsdl:IndividualCPUCount, but
>>>the consuming system then may
>>>- throw the JSDL doc back at you nagging about silly values, or
>>>- accept the document and use 3.0 instead, or
>>>- do something else, e.g. cause a kernel panic in the underlying OS. ;-)
>>You're right: it is because of how ranges are specified.
>>Let me make the small suggestion that if there is a future version
>>of JSDL, you consider adding a way to specify this in positive
>>integers, so it's harder for people to specify something meaningless.
JSDL has gone down the route of specifying quite carefully what one
can say about a job. (As opposed to something like Condor's ClassAds,
which I'm rather partial to. I really do like the idea of allowing
users to specify what they want and leave the semantics up to them,
not the creators of the language.)
But given that you've specified things so carefully, it was a
surprise to me to see something that I couldn't figure out how to
interpret as a JSDL consumer.
> Any sensible value for the fundamentally-integral ranges is exactly
>representable using a double. On the other hand, introducing a separate
>range typing scheme for integers greatly increases the amount of work
>needed to write matching engines *and* it also would have made the
>schema longer and more complicated.
If that's the general feeling in the JSDL group, then I accept it.
It's not a big deal to me.
More information about the jsdl-wg