[drmaa-wg] Latest OO binding spec v0.3

Peter Troeger peter.troeger at hpi.uni-potsdam.de
Fri Feb 18 16:22:59 CST 2005

Attached you can find the latest version 0.3 of the OO-binding spec. 
Sorry for being so late, but Dan and me discussed the last changes 
several hours ago ;-)


Rajic, Hrabri schrieb:

>This is what I have done:
>* Removed newly introduced DRMAA errors as agreed.
>* Relabeled the v0.98 doc as 1.0.
>* Rolled back few (good suggestions) from Peter to leave the 1.0 docs
>section 5.3.1, first "MUST"
>section 5.3.1, first "SHOULD"
>section 5.3.1, first "RECOMMENDED"
>section 5.3.2, first "SHOULD"
>For the reference, the above were suggested to be written is small
>letters, but they made it to the Experience doc.
>* Added Peter as an author at the back; we have simply overlooked to
>consider this, especially since Dan has done that on the first page.
>* Rebuilt the table of contents.
>On the minor note
>The C binding DRMAA errors and the ones in the 1.0 language independent
>doc are not in the same order, DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_ACTIVE_SESSION being the
>culprit, but I have not changed that because the C binding doc reflects
>what is in the drmaa.h file.
>No attempt was made to consolidate the subsections, but we do not need
>to worry about it, since GGF has a technical writer, who would do that
>if needed.
>I have downgraded the experience document to v0.98.  Since we do not
>have the OO doc ready before the deadline, I am submitting the
>experimental doc instead, in case we would like to give feedback to the
>GFSC document process at GGF 13.  It was relabeled as Experimental which
>might not be the final attribute.
>In case the OO doc is sent my way today I will forward it to Stacey.
>Both docs are attached.  PDF versions have been submitted for the GGF
>    -Hrabri
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
>Of Daniel Templeton
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:05 AM
>To: DRMAA Working Group
>Subject: [drmaa-wg] C Binding Spec 0.98 and GWD-I Doc
>Per my conversation my Andeas last night, I have removed the new job 
>info structure and the DRMAA_PS_USER_SYSTEM_SUSPENDED constant from the 
>C binding spec, as they are not allowed by the language independent 
>spec.  I also made the changes suggested by Hrabri and Peter.  This is 
>the new 0.98 spec.  This will likely be the 1.0 spec, mostly since there
>isn't anymore time to argue about it.  Hrabri, if there are no other 
>issues with the 0.98 spec, please relabel it 1.0 and submit it for
>(The 0.98 spec does contain all the other changes that were in the 0.97 
>spec.  This is because none of the other changes attempt to change the 
>sematics of the lang ind spec.  Something that may be a problem is that 
>the error codes listed in the 0.98 version go way beyond what was listed
>in the lang ind spec.  If that is an issue, Hrabri, just delete them 
>before submitting the doc as 1.0.)
>Also per my conversation with Andreas, I used the 0.97 spec to build an 
>Experiences document which contains our desire to have the two things I 
>took out of the 0.98 spec.
>Since we have no time to discuss this, I have simply done it.  I have to
>wonder, however, how it is possible for the OO, .Net, and Java language 
>bindings to use a job info struture (the JobInfo class), but the C 
>binding isn't allowed to.  Before anyone gets any clever ideas, let me 
>point out that the reason the Java language binding uses a job info 
>structure is that Java does not allow multiple out parameters.  If we 
>disallow job info structures in the binding docs, we disallow the Java 
>language binding altogether.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ggf-drmaa-oo-binding-v0_3.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 379392 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/drmaa-wg/attachments/20050218/0737038e/attachment.doc 

More information about the drmaa-wg mailing list