Dear all, Dan and me finished the work on the latest IDL specification v0.38. It is in sync with the pre-final Java spec v0.7 provided by Dan several days ago. The following issues are left open, and should be clarified by the group: Sections 3.1 / 4.2 / 5 / 6 / 6.2: Currently, the IDL spec borrows the notion of a service-provider interface (SPI) from Java world. We are not sure if and how this concept really fits to a language-independent, interface-oriented description. We could also describe the intended distinction only informally, without further influence on the document and interface layout. Section 6.1: Which exception should be thrown when non-available job status information is queried (call of 'exitStatus' with 'exited=false')? In general, do we really want to keep the POSIX-derived semantics for the JobInfo interface ? Section 6.2: setAttribute() and getAttribute() are not needed in the IDL-based specification of a JobTemplate interface. However, the reading and writing of implementation-specific job template attributes then demands introspection capabilities, in order to find the getter and setter functions. Is this acceptable ? Section 6.2.14 / 6.2.15: Dan and Peter disagree if DRMAA 1.0 allows output and error parameters in a job template to be a directory name, instead of a file name. Section 6.3.14: The IDL spec adopted the usage of comma-delimited string lists in some parameters. We might want to switch to a list types instead. We have also an open tracker specifically for the IDL spec: https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf2826 Peter.