If we say it's collective (even thought it may not be in implementations),
applications will have to be programmed as though it is collective.
> The key issue is: what model do we want to have for a communicator? This
> is, as I understand it, Jim's main concern. In MPI-1, there is no model
> for what a communicator is "in real life" down at the byte level. On the
> other hand, a profiling or debugging tool needs to access this information.
> So it seems the solution can fall into one of several categories:
In my proposal, I specifically avoided calling anything a "context".
The "id" that I proposed does not have anything to do with contexts, but
is simply a unique identifier that one can use to distinguish between
communicators. I heartily believe we should avoid calling it a context
to avoid the implication that contexts are integers or that the id has
anything to do with MPI communication.
-- Nathan Doss doss@ERC.MsState.Edu