Open MPI logo

Hardware Locality Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Hardware Locality Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [hwloc-devel] SWIG bindings
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-02 17:49:28


On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Bernd Kallies wrote:

>> 1.1 is pretty close to done. If you wanted to shift your work to be based on 1.1, I think you'd be pretty safe.
>
> I'll try. Currently my wrapper implements only basic things, so there
> should be no problem (because it is a wrapper, only). Problems would
> arise when one wants to extend the number of implemented methods.

Cool.

> To be
> honest, I expected some remarks about the completeness of the wrapper.

My personal bias is always reading from the objects; I rarely use many of the accessors (simply because hardware may not be uniform). That's why I thought your first set of accessors was sufficient.

My $0.02: those are ok. Go with that for a first version. Then get some real-world users and see what they ask for.

>> Would you -- or your employer, if they own the code that you generate -- be able to sign this document?
>
> The answer is yes.

Great!

FWIW, Samuel made a good point to me off-list earlier today: keeping language bindings as a separate package is worthwhile because then they can use their own language-native build/install/packaging tools rather than have to deal with the GNU autotools. That's a relatively good argument to put stuff on CPAN (and/or push them via RPMs to the distros).

At a bare minimum, I believe that if you host perl bindings on CPAN (and Red Hat Guy hosts python bindings elsewhere), we can definitely link to that site from our web site, README, ...etc.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres_at_[hidden]
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/