[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ptp-dev] Question about AbstractRemoteResourceManagerConfigurationWizardPage.createContents
|
Greg
Rolf and I talked about this and think our extending this class to add the
widgets for resource manager-unique options would be reasonable. I think
this means defining some key we can use to store the options tring as well
as a way to get/set it.
Dave
Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/07/2007 01:06 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] Question about
AbstractRemoteResourceManagerConfigurationWizardPage.createContents
I was just going to change that to 'Launch server manually'. :-)
I didn't have any particular solution in mind. If you'd like to be
able to override the default implementation to provide your own
wizard page then that would probably be easiest for me. It could get
a bit messy trying to provide enough flexibility on the current page
for every implementation.
Greg
On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> When the second page of the resource wizard appears, there is text
> at the
> bottom of the page next to a checkbox stating Launch ORTE server
> manually,
> where ORTE should be able to be replaced by PE, LoadLeveler, etc.
> We could
> implement our own wizard page extending this class to fix this, but
> that
> seems like the wrong thing to do to fix a message string. However,
> we have
> had some discussion about additional fields on this page for resource
> manager invocation options, such as run mode for the proxy (PE with or
> without LoadLeveler), turning on an internal proxy trace, etc.
> Is the intent to provide a generic wizard creation page that includes
> fields for proxy options, or would we be expected to provide our own
> implementation, which might be a little more user-friendly since we
> could
> provide more appropriate widgets for specifying the options.
>
> Either way is fine, we just don't want to have more unique panels
> than we
> really need.
>
> 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
