[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ptp-dev] Need new attribute type
|
Dave,
Yes. That was exactly what I was suggesting.
OK, I guess we have to provide you a BigIntegerAttribute then.
R^2
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 13:31 -0400, 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
