[ptp-dev] Re: Question about bug 292049

[Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jie,

Yes, this should really be inside the 'if', but it was moved because the PE RM does not currently generate a routing file.

Dave, would it be possible to add this to the PE RM? Would it help if I provided some support functions in the utils package? 

Greg

On Nov 5, 2009, at 9:37 AM, JiangJie wrote:

Hi Greg,

I'm almost done with the new patch.
But during the test process, I found a problem that has been solved before.
In SDMDebugger.java, writeRoutingFile() method has been moved outside the following "if (fSdmRunner !== null)" condition,
which will eliminate the use of SLURMServiceProvider.needsDebuggerLaunchHelp().  Even if needsDebuggerLaunchHelp() returns false,
the PTP debugger will still try to write the routing file. As we have discussed, SLURM proxy cann't provide enough information
for PTP debugger to generate routing file.Instead, it writes the routing file on its own. 

So is it possbile to move the call to writeRoutingFile() inside the "if" condition? (There is a version of PTP where the call to writeRoutingFile() IS inside the "if" condition in my cvs update. When did this change happen?)

Regards,
Jie

---

Subject: Re: Question about bug 292049
From: g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 3 N! ov 2009 10:04:59 -0500
CC: ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: yangtzj@xxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Jie,

The changes to the views look fine.

To fix the slurm.h problem, I've modified the proxy code to add "PTP_" to the beginning of all proxy*.h constants. Please update the slurm C code to use the new names and hopefully this should resolve the problem.

Regards,

Greg

---

使用Messenger保护盾2.0，支持多账号登录！ 现在就下载！