Re: [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type

[Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If you could do it, that would be great.

Thanks,

Greg

On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Randy M. Roberts wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Do you want me to do it, or do you want to do it?
>
> R^2
>
> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 12:12 -0600, Greg Watson wrote:
> > I'll add a BigIntegerAttribute.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Jun 21, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> >
> > > Randy
> > > I'm not quite sure I follow your suggestion. What I have is a
> > > single PE
> > > option which has the format mmm,nnn. This appears in the GUI as a
> > > single
> > > Text widget which the user fills in in this form. (I suppose I
> > > could also
> > > have two separate Text fields to contain the two parts of the
> > > field).  It
> > > also gets passed back to the proxy in this form.
> > >
> > > Is what you are suggesting is that the proxy create two attribute
> > > definitions, one for each part, named say, ATTR_PART_A and
> > > ATTR_PART_B,
> > > then use those two attribute definitions to perform validations for
> > > each
> > > of the components of the option?
> > >
> > > I think that would work for me, and also solves the second part  
> > > of my
> > > validation problem where an option can have a value that can either
> > > be one
> > > of an enumerated set or an integer with range limits.
> > >
> > > In that case, in order for my validation to be correct, I would  
> > > have a
> > > definite need for a LONG attribute definition event or a BIGINTEGER
> > > attribute definition event.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Randy M. Roberts" <rsqrd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 06/21/2007 12:00 PM
> > > Please respond to
> > > Parallel Tools Platform general developers <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > >
> > > To
> > > ptp-dev <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > cc
> > >
> > > Subject
> > > Re: [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave,
> > >
> > > Since the field is nnn,mmm, couldn't you present
> > > it as two fields, nnn and mmm, with a "," label between
> > > them?  Then you could verify the nnn and the mmm separately.
> > >
> > > R^2
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 09:09 -0400, Dave Wootton wrote:
> > > > Greg
> > > > At the moment, I don't have a specific need for > 32 bit integer
> > > support.
> > > > The one attribute that can be > 32 bit integer has the format  
> > > > nnn,mmm
> > > > where mmm can be > 32 bits. So it doesn't fit the model of a simple
> > > > integer attribute, and I have to figure out how to validate it
> > > otherwise.
> > > > At the moment, this is one case where I have to hard code the
> > > > validation
> > >
> > > > ranges in the gui code.
> > > >
> > > > We may need larger integers for LL, but we aren't sure yet. Our
> > > > specific
> > >
> > > > need is for 32 bit and 64 bit integers but have no objection to a
> > > > more
> > > > general BigInteger implementation.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 06/20/2007 06:15 PM
> > > > Please respond to
> > > > Parallel Tools Platform general developers <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To
> > > > Parallel Tools Platform general developers <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > cc
> > > >
> > > > Subject
> > > > Re: [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I could implement this as a BigInteger (i.e. arbitrary precision
> > > > integer). When the attribute definition is created, you would  
> > > > specify
> > > > the precision which would be fixed from then on. That might help  
> > > > with
> > > > the validation?
> > > >
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On second thought, I may not really need this. The 64 bit value
> > > > > is an
> > > > > optional part of an attribute which I am treating as a string
> > > > > attribute
> > > > > (since it's in the form ATTR=nnn,mmm). As long as I treat it as a
> > > > > string,
> > > > > with the possible exception of some validation code, I think I
> > > > > don't need
> > > > > the additional attribute types,
> > > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Wootton/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
> > > > > Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > 06/20/2007 04:33 PM
> > > > > Please respond to
> > > > > Parallel Tools Platform general developers <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To
> > > > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > cc
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject
> > > > > [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I found out that I have one case where I have an attribute that
> > > > > should be
> > > > > defined as a 64 bit integer. Is it possible to define a
> > > > > LongIntegerAttribute and LongIntegerAttributeDefinition, along  
> > > > > with
> > > > > supporting events, etc?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Dave
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ptp-dev mailing list
> > > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ptp-dev mailing list
> > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev