[Pipet Devel] node-to-node communication: you can have it 3 ways!
J.W. Bizzaro
bizzaro at geoserve.net
Wed Mar 22 09:33:50 EST 2000
jarl van katwijk wrote:
>
> Chart 1 is not acceptable for security and management reasons,
(Chart 1: GMS brokers Overflow-to-Overflow subnet communication)
But *IF* Overflow can can be made secure and managable across the Internet,
then Chart 1 is an option, right? I mean, it's just like Chart 2, except
Overflow is the 'foreign app'.
> chart 2 is fine, applications communication just the way
> they should have done without any system wrapping them,
(Chart 2: GMS/Overflow broker foreign app communication)
Right. No arguments here.
> chart 3 is best when the internet had unlimited capacity :)
(Chart 3: No brokering; all communication goes through GMS)
Remember though that all those 2-way communication lines below GMS are kept
within the local host. There's still only one communication line through the
Internet: between GMS instances.
> I like to see 2 and a 3b possible, where 3b is Jeffs 3,
> only the 'gms layer' will try to clone remote nodes to
> local addres space
Well, if the nodes are small enough, and the cloning process takes less time
than Internet communication, then why not?
> Any reason why 1 should not be thrown away?
If we agree that Overflow will not communicate with anything across the
Internet, then 1 can be thrown away. I just wanted to leave that option open
to Jean-Marc if he wants to develop an Internet API later on.
Cheers.
Jeff
--
+----------------------------------+
| J.W. Bizzaro |
| |
| http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ |
| |
| BIOINFORMATICS.ORG |
| The Open Lab |
| |
| http://bioinformatics.org/ |
+----------------------------------+
More information about the Pipet-Devel
mailing list