Re: [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type

["Randy M. Roberts" <rsqrd@xxxxxxxx>]

Done!

R^2

On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 12:43 -0600, Greg Watson wrote:
> 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev