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

[Douglas Gregor <dgregor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote:
> > About the Java, C#, and other "new" interfaces: if they are really
> > necessary, the Forum for me is the only place where "official" MPI
> > bindings can be approved. They may be developed elsewhere, but if
> > somebody want their binding to achieve that status, they should  
> > come up
> > with a proposal and work with or, better, in the Forum.
>
> Are there any languages that cannot have 3rd party MPI bindings by  
> layering on top of C MPI bindings?

None that are likely to matter for MPI's target audience :)

It's far more important that we can build solid MPI bindings for  
other languages based on the C MPI bindings than it is important (or  
useful) to introduce new language bindings into the MPI standard.  
What we should be looking for are places where MPI makes it  
unnecessarily hard to implement important functionality within these  
other language bindings, or where MPI interacts poorly with the  
environments in which these other languages operate.

	- Doug