Uh... I was supposed to send out a proposal on wording for some addition to the IDL spec, per the con call today, but I am no longer certain what it was. Was it the optional drmaa_job_ps states? If so, here it is: A DRMAA implementation is not required to be able to return all of the described jobs states. If a given state has no representation in the underlying DRMS, the DRMAA implementation is free to ignore that state. Daniel Peter Troeger wrote:
OK. Now I'm confused. I just looked through the latest IDL spec, and I no longer see the references to what to do when your language doesn't have exceptions or what to do when your language is not introspective. Has the IDL spec become the OO, introspective IDL spec, i.e the C#/Java spec?
Ok, I scanned the IDL / OO-binding discussions of the last 12 months. At some point in time, we decided (informally) to concentrate the IDL spec on languages with support for 'OO' features. This was reasoned by two facts:
- The C binding already relies on the language-independent spec. - The language-independent 1.0 spec and the IDL 1.0 spec are equivalent and exist side-by-side.
Therefore, all C-like languages (BTW, which else do we have?) can rely on the language-independent spec.
The other solution might be to add a special section for C-like languages in the IDL spec. This section could introduce the necessary additional constructs (like ERROR_NO_MORE_ELEMENTS) and rules (mapping of exception names to error code names).
Regards, Peter. -- drmaa-wg mailing list drmaa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg