I will do one more pass of the 1.0 C binding spec, remove the newly introduced errors and submit it to GGF. Regarding the Experience doc and the suggestions coming from Java/.NET work I think that is the work that we needed to fairly assess the 1.0 spec. The only question is if the collective pile of corrections and proposed additions we are looking right now is enough to mandate restarting the process. JobInfo is something that we would need to introduce for the OO/Java languages. No way around it. There is no need to rush publishing this document. Let us all have an opinion about it - not the details but overall state and how fully it is aligned with the OO doc. I would like Peter and Dan give their opinion on this. BTW, on one of the issues we have no definite agreement what to do. The only reason to publish this doc is discuss it in Seoul, but with only me and Andreas there that is debatable. Another reason to publish the Experience doc is to approach the GFSC with it and argue that our experience warrants modifying the GGF document process, but I would give more scrutiny to this and involve all the active DRMAA members. -Hrabri -----Original Message----- From: owner-drmaa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg@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 GGF13. (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. Daniel