> Although this may seem like a trivial approach, it would certainly help
> to define the problem. Perhaps providers and vendors should be polling
> their users and ask them to comment.
No matter who the public is, they must understand the standard before they
can know how much they like it, and they must know how much they like it before
they can express how much they like it. To understand it, they could try to
write some programs with it, and/or read the 380-page document, and/or attend
a presentation or tutorial, and/or discuss it with others who are familiar
with it. And that's just for people who already understand MPI-1. For almost
everyone, reading the document is the only available option.
So, this public comment period is first a test of whether people can read the
document. Regardless of how wonderful MPI might be, reading a 380-page
standards book, containing justifications based upon details about machines
with which the reader may not be familiar, may be an imposing task, especially
if it is being read in one's spare time for no pay. Even the forum hasn't
contented itself with some parts. The SC'96 BOF session might have helped a
little, but it was very short, and left me a little confused. (e.g. Did Marc
say that multiple non-overlapping PUTs to the same window were disallowed in
some cases? Between WIN_BARRIERS? I can't seem to find a statement one way
or the other in the document, but it's probably in there, and this seems like
an important point.) On the other hand, I don't want to make excuses for
those who do find the time and motivation to read the document.
My guess is, therefore, that a questionnaire won't help for a review of *THE*
standard, though it could theoretically help to determine what people would
like in *A* standard. It does seem a little late for a step like this, but
maybe the current standard could be tailored to suit the results.
-Dave
(Someone (in addition to Juan) sent me some personal email about one of my
previous posts this afternoon and I accidentally deleted it before reading
it. If they see this, please resend if possible. Thanks.)
========================================================================
David C. DiNucci | MRJ, Inc., Rsrch Scntst | NASA Ames Rsrch Ctr
dinucci@nas.nasa.gov| NAS (Num. Aerospace Sim.)| M/S T27A-2
(415)604-4430 | Parallel Tools Team | Moffett Field, CA 94035