Sun's participation in this community was to obtain a stable and
performant MPI implementation that had some research work done on the
side to improve those goals and the introduction of new features. We
don't have problems with others using and improving on the OMPI code
base but we need to make sure such usage doesn't detract from our
primary goal of performant MPI implementation.
However, changes to the OMPI code base to allow it to morph or even
support a distributed OS does cause for some concern. That is are we
opening the door to having more interfaces to support? If so is this
wise in the fact that it seems to me we have a hard enough time trying
to focus on the MPI items? Not to mention this definitely starts
detracting from the original goals.
--td
Andrew Lumsdaine wrote:
Hi all -- There is a meta question that I think is underlying some of
the discussion about what to do with BTLs etc. Namely, is Open MPI an
MPI implementation with a portable run time system -- or is it a
distributed OS with an MPI interface? It seems like some of the
changes being asked for (e.g., with the BTLs) reflect the latter --
but perhaps not everyone shares that view and hence the impedance
mismatch.
I doubt this is the last time that tensions will come up because of
differing views on this question.
I suggest that we come to some kind of common understanding of the
question (and answer) and structure development and administration
accordingly.
Best Regards,
Andrew Lumsdaine
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@open-mpi.org
http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
