Re: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the Jan mee ting

["William Yu" <wyu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

If there is a conference bridge I can dial in too.

________________ Reply Header ________________
Subject:	Re: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the Jan meeting
Author:	Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:		December 02nd 2007 12:02 am


1. In the context of past efforts these language binding issues would  
be the responsibility of a subcommittee that deals with language  
binding. So I suggest that one of the things we need to address at the  
January meeting is the formation of such a language binding  
subcommittee and if we do not currently have people with the right  
language backgrounds we invite a few relevant people to participate.

For example, in the case of Java (that seems especially important to  
me), would it not be prudent to simply ask Sun for some participation;  
I am quite certain that such a request will have sympathetic ears.  
Somebody should speak to James Gosling and/or Guy Steele - they can at  
least point us in the right direction.

2. I would like to see the merits of the proposed User Experience  
meeting discussed at the January meeting. If I am not present (which  
seems likely at this point) I am willing to dial into that discussion.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
http://senses.info




On Dec 1, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Erez Haba wrote:

> I agree with Jeff here, the higher abstraction languages require  
> more than a plain down level interface like C/FORTRAN. To make them  
> usable, a more abstract programming model is needed. One that fits  
> naturally with the language and its usage. For example, see the  
> excellent bindings for C# with MPI.NET from the University of  
> Indiana http://www.osl.iu.edu/research/mpi.net/.
>
> If you look at this interface you'll find that many of its aspects  
> are not even close to the way the existing MPI interfaces are  
> defined. These differences have very good reason, they are to give  
> better support for the language abstractions and be natural for the  
> C# users.
> For example, the entire MPI_Type* set of API's are not present in  
> this interface as they've been abstracted away by the MPI.NET C#  
> bindings. This enables a more natural use for the C# programmer like  
> auto type-safety marshaling of any data type or calling collectives  
> with a variable length string.
>
> I think that this level of interface is beyond the scope of the MPI  
> forum and is more in the scope of the specific language experts.
>
> Thanks,
> .Erez
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]  
> On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:55 AM
> To: mpi-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [mpi-21] Call for MPI 2.2 and 3.0 agenda items for the  
> Jan mee ting
>
> 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
>