Re: Canonical (External?) Data Representation
Eric Salo (salo@mrjones.engr.sgi.com)
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:48:09 -0800
> 1) Have exactly one Canonical representation. We need some consensus on
> what this should look like.
> 2) Assemble all the relevant standards and some how support them. We need
a
> comprehensive list of these standards and mappings from all language
> types to the standard(s) types.
> 3) Target a large number of native machine types and provide translation on
> input and output. We need syntax and semantics on how to make this
> happen. I think the multiple language mappings can make this messy.
> 4) Have a small number of External representations. We need a consensus on
> how many and what they should look like.
> 5) Forget it (this proposal is the easiest to write up :-).
I don't think that (2) and (3) are necessarily all that different. For example,
we could define MPI_DATA_XDR and MPI_DATA_ASN1 as a starting point, and then
add MPI_DATA_MIPS64, MPI_DATA_SPARC32, and so on. Which of these are supported
then becomes a quality of implementation issue.
--
Eric Salo Silicon Graphics Inc. salo@sgi.com