Open Grid Foundation DRMAA working group ()

Peter Tröger | 16 Mar 2012 08:54

OGF34 summary

Dear all,

as announced, I spent two days at OGF 34 in Oxford. Here is the short summary from DRMAA perspective:

1.) C Binding

Andre Merzky and me spend some minutes on fixing the final issues in the C binding header file. As before, the
latest version is here:

http://bit.ly/zwgDFP

We did another round of re-naming to get the method names even shorter. The list iterator is now more array-alike.

Since I get frequent requests for the final header file, I will start the document preparation during the
next days. If you want to influence the C layout of DRMAAv2, this is your last chance.

2.) Reference implementation

I found a student to implement a fork-based prototype of DRMAAv2 for C. Feel free to join us:

https://github.com/troeger/drmaav2-mock

3.) OCCI-DRMAA

This idea was the primary reason for visiting OGF 34. Thijs Metsch,  Alexander Papaspyrou and Andy Edmonds
(all OCCI) helped me with the creation of a surprisingly complete draft of the spec.

Everybody loved the idea of getting 'remote HTTP-based DRMAA' and 'OCCI PaaS for job submission' at the
same time. The concepts seem to work.

(Continue reading)

headers

Roger Brobst | 30 Mar 2012 01:53

Re: OGF34 summary

Referring to the drmaa2 C binding header at http://bit.ly/zwgDFP
I see:

typedef void * drmaa2_jsession_h;
typedef void * drmaa2_rsession_h;
typedef void * drmaa2_msession_h;
typedef void * drmaa2_j_h;
typedef void * drmaa2_jarray_h;
typedef void * drmaa2_r_h;

whereas, I expected something more like:

struct drmaa2_jsession_s; /*forward*/
struct drmaa2_rsession_s; /*forward*/
struct drmaa2_msession_s; /*forward*/
struct drmaa2_j_s;	  /*forward*/
struct drmaa2_jarray_s;   /*forward*/
struct drmaa2_r_s;        /*forward*/

typedef struct drmaa2_jsession_s * drmaa2_jsession_h;
typedef struct drmaa2_rsession_s * drmaa2_rsession_h;
typedef struct drmaa2_msession_s * drmaa2_msession_h;
typedef struct drmaa2_j_s        * drmaa2_j_h;
typedef struct drmaa2_jarray_s   * drmaa2_jarray_h;
typedef struct drmaa2_r_s        * drmaa2_r_h;

A problem with using,
     typedef void * drmaa2_jsession_h;
in a C binding is that any pointer type can be passed to a
function declared like:

(Continue reading)

headers

Andre Merzky | 30 Mar 2012 10:28

Re: OGF34 summary

+1

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Roger Brobst <rogerb@...> wrote:
> Referring to the drmaa2 C binding header at http://bit.ly/zwgDFP
> I see:
>
> typedef void * drmaa2_jsession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_rsession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_msession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_j_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_jarray_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_r_h;
>
>
> whereas, I expected something more like:
>
> struct drmaa2_jsession_s; /*forward*/
> struct drmaa2_rsession_s; /*forward*/
> struct drmaa2_msession_s; /*forward*/
> struct drmaa2_j_s;        /*forward*/
> struct drmaa2_jarray_s;   /*forward*/
> struct drmaa2_r_s;        /*forward*/
>
> typedef struct drmaa2_jsession_s * drmaa2_jsession_h;
> typedef struct drmaa2_rsession_s * drmaa2_rsession_h;
> typedef struct drmaa2_msession_s * drmaa2_msession_h;
> typedef struct drmaa2_j_s        * drmaa2_j_h;
> typedef struct drmaa2_jarray_s   * drmaa2_jarray_h;
> typedef struct drmaa2_r_s        * drmaa2_r_h;
>

(Continue reading)

headers

Peter Tröger | 30 Mar 2012 11:21

Re: OGF34 summary

Dear Roger,

thanks for this helpful correction.

Since the implementation needs to realize the true structures anyway, it 
makes even more sense to have forward definitions. I applied the same 
pattern also to drmaa2_list and drmaa2_dict.

The header file was updated accordingly:

http://bit.ly/zwgDFP

I am still working on the document text.

Best regards,
Peter.

Am 30.03.12 01:53, schrieb Roger Brobst:
> Referring to the drmaa2 C binding header at http://bit.ly/zwgDFP
> I see:
>
> typedef void * drmaa2_jsession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_rsession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_msession_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_j_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_jarray_h;
> typedef void * drmaa2_r_h;
>
>
> whereas, I expected something more like:

(Continue reading)