[mpiwg-p2p] Communicator assertions

[Schulz Martin]

The slides themselves are fine with me ­ the only comment I would have is
that the second bullet on the first proposal is a general statement, we want
that in any case. Any other solution, including the CVar, would have to
adhere to the same requirements. Perhaps it would make more sense to put
that before the ³Why not Info keys² slide and generally describe what we
want to accomplish and then just say for this one idea, we have two API
proposals (not proposals for different concepts).

Since Bill will present them, I guess the question is for him: do you want
any more details on the CVars on should we just have this as part of the
discussions?

Martin


From:  Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com>
Date:  Friday, February 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM
To:  MPI WG Point To Point Communications working group
<mpiwg-p2p at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Cc:  Schulz Martin <schulzm at llnl.gov>, Bill Gropp <wgropp at uiuc.edu>
Subject:  Communicator assertions

Hi All, 

I would like to raise communicator assertions (was communicator info keys)
for discussion again at the upcoming meeting.  I have attached a rough
sketch of two possible directions for the proposal.

The goal with these slides is to create an outline that can be used for
discussion in the P2P WG meeting.  Please send feedback, rotten tomatoes, or
questions.

Cheers,
 ~Jim.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-p2p/attachments/20150220/089c7cce/attachment-0001.html>