Re: [ptp-dev] Problem with creating enumerated attribute definitions?

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

BTW, there is no reason why you can't create the
EnumeratedAttributeDefinition from the proxy end if it's an agreed
upon Java Enum.

Let's say that some LSF want-to-be has a concept of priority,
and has defined the following Java Enum,

	public enum Priority {
             HIGH,
             MEDIUM,
             NICE,
             VERY_NICE
        }.

I could extend the proxy, for the want-to-be, to recognize a new
parameter that says to create an attribute or attribute definition using
this particular enum.

Why would you want to modify all of the code that currently uses
the EnumeratedAttribute?  It would be an unnecessary code change that
will only do more harm (type-safety) than good.

Regards,
R^2

On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 15:29 -0600, Greg Watson wrote:
> I found some other bugs in this code. Please test and let me know if  
> it's ok now.
> 
> I discussed the attribute types with Randy. The reason he added  
> StringSetAttributeDefinition was that an  
> EnumeratedAttributeDefinition maps to an existing (Java) enumerated  
> type. Since there is no existing enumerated type when you create an  
> enumerated attribute definition from the proxy end, its not possible  
> to use this type. A StringSetAttributeDefinition has similar  
> characteristics to an EnumeratedAttributeDefinition, it is just not  
> backed by a real enumerated type.
> 
> I'm not sure I like the idea of having some attribute definition  
> types that can't be created from the proxy end, and would like to  
> consider merging these back together. We will lose some functionality  
> from the EnumeratedAttributeDefinition since it won't be a real  
> enumerated type any more, but I'm not sure this will be a big  
> problem. Do you have any thoughts one way or the other?
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> 
> > Greg
> > Yes, that is what I am doing.
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/20/2007 02:24 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] Problem with creating enumerated attribute definitions?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just to clarify, you are creating an enumerated attribute definition
> > (using an ATTR_DEF event) that has only one value, and that is
> > causing a NPE?
> >
> > I think that should be allowed, so it sounds like a bug. In fact, I
> > think you should be able to have an enumerated attribute definition
> > with no values (not sure what use it would be, but it should be
> > allowed at least).
> >
> > I'll check out the code you mentioned...
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Jun 20, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> >
> >> Greg
> >> I found what I think may be another bug with enumerated attribute
> >> definitions, although in this case, I might be abusing the concept
> >> of an
> >> enuerated attribute.
> >>
> >> I am trying to remove coding of specific values related to attributes
> >> defined by my proxy from my implementation of
> >> AbstractRMLaunchConfigurationDynamicTab. I have this working fine for
> >> default attribute values, and by use of enumerated attribute
> >> definitions,
> >> I have this working for attributes where I have a boolean selection
> >> such
> >> as yes/no. I realized I could build on this and use enumerated
> >> attribute
> >> definitions to specify the set of allowable selections that get
> >> added to a
> >> Combo box, and now have that working, except :-) for one attribute,
> >> where
> >> I have an editable Combo box where the user makes a choice of the
> >> single
> >> enumeration ('max') or types in a number to specify the value. For
> >> this
> >> one case, the enumerated attribute definition value set has only one
> >> value, which kind of stretches the concept of enumeration.
> >>
> >> The problem is that code near AbstractProxyRuntimeSystem line 832
> >> does
> >> not accept an event with only a single enumeration value, and line  
> >> 842
> >> fires a RuntimeMessageEvent. This goes somewhere, and I end up
> >> getting a
> >> null pointer exception.
> >>
> >> I can code around this by including a dummy enumeration value, like
> >> '???'
> >> and having the code which creates the Combo box ignore the '???' when
> >> adding items to the combo box, but I wanted to get your opinion  
> >> first.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> 06/20/2007 11:25 AM
> >> 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] Problem with creating enumerated attribute definitions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Agreed. It seems like they're both bugs. Hopefully Randy might be
> >> able to shed some light on this.
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Jun 20, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Greg
> >>> I was more concerned with the problem of not picking up the 2nd
> >>> enumeration value from the enumeration attribute definition event  
> >>> the
> >>> proxy sent to the front end than I was with getting a
> >>> StringSetAttributeDefinition object generated by the front end
> >>> instead of
> >>> the EnumeratedAttributeDefinition object that I was expecting to
> >>> get. I
> >>> agree that getting back a StringSetAttributionDefinition object back
> >>> instead or an EnumeratedAttributeDefinition object is likely a bug.
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Sent by: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> 06/19/2007 04:13 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] Problem with creating enumerated attribute  
> >>> definitions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dave,
> >>>
> >>> You're so polite. It's highly likely to be a bug. If you're sending
> >>> an ENUMERATED attribute type, then that's what you should get, not a
> >>> StringSetAttribute.
> >>>
> >>> The StringSetAttribute is a new one on me. Anyone know what this is
> >>> for? How does it differ from an ArrayAttribute?
> >>>
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 19, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Dave Wootton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've made a change to my proxy to send enumerated attribute
> >>>> definition
> >>>> events to the front end. My intent is to use these attribute
> >>>> definitions
> >>>> to set the labels on a pair or radio buttons representing a boolean
> >>>> option. I've created a function in my proxy that sends the event to
> >>>> the
> >>>> front end in what I believe is the correct format <1, <n>, <id>,
> >>>> ENUMERATED, <short_name> <long_name> <default> <attr> <attr> ...>
> >>>> where
> >>>> <n> is the number of following tokens (5 + number of enumerations)
> >>>>
> >>>> I did have a problem where even though I was sending across 2
> >>>> enumerations, the StringSetAttributeDefinition that gets created
> >>>> has only
> >>>> the first enumeration. I found a line of code in
> >>>> AbstractProxyRuntimeSystem line 832 which read 'if (pos < end) {'
> >>>> which
> >>>> was resulting in picking up only the first enumeration. If I
> >>>> changed the
> >>>> '<' to '<=' then I get a StringSetAttributeDefinition with the two
> >>>> enumeration values.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is in the latest PTP code, since I updated my code this
> >>>> morning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this a problem with the AbstractProxyRuntimeSystem code, or have
> >>>> I done
> >>>> something wrong in my proxy?
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, when I send across an enumeration attribute definition, is it
> >>>> supposed to result in the creation of a  
> >>>> StringSetAttributeDefinition
> >>>> object? I was expecting to see an EnumerationAttributeDefinition
> >>>> object
> >>>> created, but when I got a class cast exception based on that
> >>>> assumtion, I
> >>>> tracked down the code where the StringSetAttributeDefinition was
> >>>> created.
> >>>>
> >>>> Generation of an EnumerationAttributeDefinition or a
> >>>> StringSetAttributeDefinition is fine either way. Leaving the code
> >>>> as-is
> >>>> means I don't have to get the attribute definition and then create
> >>>> a dummy
> >>>> attribute to get the value, but that's not frequently called code
> >>>> so isn't
> >>>> a big deal.
> >>>> 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