Hi Peter, I probably won't make the call, thus some input from my end. I don't have overly strong opinions on any of the issues, so whatever option gets the majority will be fine with me.
Comments inlined below. Best, Andre. On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Peter Tröger <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > since the public comment period for DRMAAv2 C-binding is over, we need to > discuss our reaction on the comments. The next DRMAA conf call is > therefore scheduled for Wednesday, August 22, 19:00 UTC - 20:00 UTC. > > We meet on Skype, please find me under the nickname "potsdam_pit". > > Preliminary meeting agenda: > > 1. Meeting secretary for this meeting? > 2. Status report by the participants > 3. Public comments on DRMAAv2 C-binding > (http://ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=388) > - pointer NULLing by the library ? What it means for the interface ? I find nulling convenient and safe, and don't mind a slight asymmetry in the interface to support it. You will find best practices in support of it, but also good arguments against it, I am sure ;-) > - Problems with OStype and CPUtype enumerations > - Semantics of DRMAA2_DATA_SEG_SIZE Clarifying the text should suffice? > - Additional free functions needed > - Return type for wait functions return an error. Chaining is not very useful, and confusing, if not applied to all calls - which would make error reporting difficult. > - _j_ vs. _job_ _j_, as that will be frequently used. Not sure if ultra short prefixes are good in general though. length versus readability is hard to decide, and someone *will* be unhappy, no matter what you choose... Cheers, Andre. > - Small issues > > Best regards, > Peter. > > > > -- > drmaa-wg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg -- Nothing is ever easy... -- drmaa-wg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
