[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the Jan mee ting
- To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the Jan mee ting
- From: Jeff Squyres <jsquyres@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:55:03 -0500
- Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=jsquyres@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21-outgoing@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Delivered-to: mpifrm-mpi-21@mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov
- Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=961; t=1196528118; x=1197392118; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsquyres@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jeff=20Squyres=20<jsquyres@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[mpi-21]=20Call=20for=20MPI=202.2=20and=203.0=20agend a=20items=20for=20the=20Jan=20mee=20ting |Sender:=20 |To:=20mpi-21@mpi-forum.org; bh=6GWniIC+pMNnVTQJDbmwWSOL8BGKvVHjp0gIRdrPrVI=; b=YhVgRCBEGX93mWG+ALed3J69ieovkD10RQHT4o1CTGq8hhfEzk/TvdI/kTTPsKJuDnDLdRdi ziCSPDguuKXSzL3Y6kDjmA/Kp+ZUkVsxXSWP6O8ZNu4+ENMLi+lmdhNt;
- In-reply-to: <20071201114439.t328yni7h0c0084w@mail.ateneo.edu>
- References: <s5hjylT0Q3PZ.mKcqdGT2@smtp.gmail.com> <B40D15A9-5FCB-4F48-8A3F-BDF81FFB3538@cisco.com> <20071201114439.t328yni7h0c0084w@mail.ateneo.edu>
- Reply-to: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 30, 2007, at 10:44 PM, William Emmanuel S. Yu wrote:
That is right Jeff. Official Java Bindings would be a good first step.
The goal is to have "consistent" guidelines (standards) for library
makers.
What is the best way to go about this?
All new MPI topics start with a proposal. :-)
But before you spend time on a proposal, you might want to ask the
community if they want official Java bindings. There were strong
waves of apathy to prior attempts at standardizing Java bindings.
The Boost C++ implementation is
pretty good but only works on ... well ... Boost. No plans to define
something more consistent across the board? Or maybe this should be
done by another group?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The Boost MPI package is a fine
standalone package. I don't see any reason to standardize it; MPI
already has basic-building-blocks C++ bindings.
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems