Is a hub-based architecture best or should it be peer to peer (or something else?)

a hub gives decoupling between clients, and makes things like discovery easier (possible?). P2P could be more efficient, but requires all connected applications to connect to the same transport. This is not the case for a hub architecture - each application only needs to support one of the transports provided by the hub, which can act as a 'bridge' for messages passing between clients on different transports (this is what the plastic hub does at the moment) -- NoelWinstanley
P2P would allow seamless interoperability (i.e no need for a user to worry about whether the hub is running or not). That would be sweet! -- BrunoRino - 09 Feb 2007

Do we need to be able to partition apps within a hub into separate mutually inaccessible groups?

not necessary, but partitioning (not necessarily inacessible) could be useful - especially if groups had some kind of semantics - profiles of functionaliy, or classes of application maybe -- NoelWinstanley

What style of messaging do we want?

  • request-reponse style messaging?
  • Asynchronous messaging?
  • Polling?
  • ?

asynchronous, I think, with polling for apps (scripts) which can't 'receive' messages -- NoelWinstanley
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | Raw edit | More topic actions
Topic revision: r3 - 2007-02-09 - BrunoRino
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by Perl This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platformCopyright © 2008-2024 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback