[Os-project-managers] [Fwd: OSoL, OSrL, change sets 2819 and 3013]

[Horand Gassmann]

Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu> wrote:

> Hi Guys:
>
> Before addressing the issues below here is some history.  This issue
> goes back to an early Jun-Kipp battle before Gus came on board. After
> doing OSiL we moved on to OSrL. I wanted to keep the numberOf stuff
> required since I was working with arrays in C++ and needed to know the
> number of things I was reading before reading them so I could do a new.
> Jun did not. Jun won. I was forced to go these as optional and then
> because I was working with C++ forced to use Vectors and not arrays.
> Later when this issue was revisited we changed. Yea!
>
> Is the following accurate?
>
> OSiL -- we currently have numberOfXXX required
> OSrL -- we currently have numberOfXXX required
> OSoL -- we currently have numberOfXXX optional
>
> So Gus, if I understand your proposal, it is basically to go back and
> have 2/3 optional instead of 2/3 required. Is this correct?

Ah, this is not quite accurate. In OSoL and OSrL we have an  
<optimization> element with attributes "numberOfVariables",  
"numberOfObjectives" and "numberOfConstraints". These attributes are  
redundant and do not have an equivalent in OSiL. Whenever we do need  
the number of items in an element, such as number of variables in the  
OSoL element <initialVariableValues>, we require /in this element/ a  
mandatory attribute "numberOfVariables". I have no plans to abandon  
that. However, the attribute "numberOfVariables" in the parent element  
'optimization. is not used for anything (other than perhaps a  
consistency check, namely that each "idx" in the  
<initialVariableValues> has a legal value (between 0 and  
"numberOfVariables"). In OSoL the attribute is entirely unnecessary  
and may actually stand in the way of reusability, and in OSrL it does  
not add much of value either.

To be specific, I am talking about removing the attribute  
"numberOfVariables" in line 195 of OSoL.xsd, *not* the attribute  
"numberOfVar" in line 241.



> I prefer we instead make OSoL required. Here is my logic. If we use
> optional instead of required we impose a tax on people who want to use a
> language such as C for implementation. In C there is no vector
> construct. So if you don't know numberOfXXX this is a big problem. What
> is the logic of imposing this tax on developers?

See above. The particular information I want to remove is actually redundant.

Cheers

gus