On Nov 1, 2012, at 19:07 , Nathan Hjelm <hjelmn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I was going to address this second inconsistency with another patch but now seems like a good time to get a see if anyone has an opinion about how this should be fixed. I can think of two simple fixes:
> 1) Since mca_base_components_open calls OBJ_CONSTRUCT should mca_base_components_close call OBJ_DESTRUCT?
> 2) Should the caller be responsible for both the OBJ_CONSTRUCT and OBJ_DESTRUCT calls?
I'm fine either way, but I do have a slight preference for 1.
>> - it force us to have one specific output for each framework
> This isn't the case at the moment since frameworks can call opal_output_close on any extra output streams. It would be better if frameworks have t close all open output streams using opal_output_close instead of using mca_base_components_close. If we want to change the semantics of mca_base_components_close I can redo this patch. Anyone have an opinion on this?
mca_base_components_close should not close an output stream opened by another entity (or if it does the arguments should be changed to int* and it should set it to -1). I think that counts as having an opinion ;)
> -Nathan Hjelm
> HPC-3, LANL
> devel mailing list