The most appealing thing about the XML option is that it just works
"out of the box." Using a library API invariably requires compiling an
agent or distributing pre-compiled binaries with all the associated
complications. We tried that in the dim past and it was pretty
unworkable. The other problem was that the API headers were not
installed by default, so users were forced to install local copies of
OMPI with development headers enabled. It was not a great end-user
On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> Thinking about this a little more ...
> This all seems like Open MPI-specific functionality for Eclipse. If
> that's the case, don't we have an ORTE tools communication library
> that could be used? IIRC, it pretty much does exactly what you want
> and would be far less clumsy than trying to jury-rig sending XML
> down files/fd's/whatever. I have dim recollections of the ORTE
> tools communication library API returning the data that you have
> asked for in data structures -- no parsing of XML at all (and, more
> importantly to us, no need to add all kinds of special code paths
> for wrapping our output in XML).
> If I'm right (and that's a big "if"!), is there a reason that this
> library is not attractive to you?
> On Sep 10, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> Hmmm....I never considered the possibility of output-filename being
>>> used that way. Interesting idea!
>> That feels way weird to me -- for example, how do you know that
>> you're actually outputting to a tty?
>> FWIW: +1 on the idea of writing to numbered fd's passed on the
>> command line. It just "feels" like a more POSIX-ish way of doing
>> things...? I guess I'm surprised that that would be difficult to
>> do from Java.
>> Jeff Squyres
> Jeff Squyres
> devel mailing list