Peter, Good idea. :) Daniel Peter Troeger wrote:
I added an explicit reference to the SESSION_ALL description in the control() and synchronize() text blocks. This avoids triplication of the error condition description.
Peter.
Am 23.12.2006 um 00:20 schrieb Daniel Templeton:
Peter,
Sorry. I leaped before looking. The text that I was expecting to find is under the SESSION_ALL description. I think it would be useful to replicate that text under the control() method as well, or perhaps more it there completely.
Daniel
Daniel Templeton wrote:
Peter,
I thought that we had also agreed that there should be some text explicitly discussing what happens (or is not guaranteed to happen) when a control(SESSION_ALL) call fails. I don't see that in the control() method description.
Daniel
Daniel Templeton wrote:
Peter,
You are not wrong about the DRMAA_ERRNO_NO_MORE_ELEMENTS being only for non-object-oriented language-without-native-lists bindings. The IDL spec should, however, include enough detail to make it possible to generate the various other language bindings, including the non-OO bindings. (The reference to the error in the Java spec it to say that is has no mapping.)
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?
Daniel
Peter Troeger wrote:
Hi,
I have discovered a couple of errors in the 0.7.1 spec, mostly related to exceptions. I also added a separate table for correlating IDL exceptions to Java exceptions. Hopefully I have now also completely removed all uses of the old (pre-0.4) naming from the spec.
Great. I also got some feedback for IDL spec from HPI people, but mostly regarding formulations. I will release the final document after christmas, if there are no more issues found by somebody else on the list.
There is now one open issue that I will need to resolve with Peter. I believe that we agreed to add a NoMoreElementsException to the IDL spec to be thrown from the cursor functions instead of InvalidArgumentException when the iterator is exhausted. I do not, however, see that error code listed in the currect IDL spec, and I can't get to the tracker site at the moment to confirm my recollection. For now, the Java spec references this missing error code. If it turns out that I am misremembering the decision regarding this error code, I will remove the reference before I make the Java spec final.
I am somehow confused. I thought the NO_MORE_ELEMENTS error is only needed for the string vector helper functions in the C binding. Java and friends have native vector types, so there is simply no need for the helper functions, and therefore also no need for this error. Right ?!?
Peter. -- drmaa-wg mailing list drmaa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
-- drmaa-wg mailing list drmaa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg