ietf-openproxy
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: OPES protocol, pre-draft

2003-02-19 11:10:49
At 17:48 19/02/03, Alex Rousskov wrote:
Once you accept the pipeline idea, everything should snap into place.

total agreement. Takes good shape!

Now, in term of wording why pipes would they not link "dispatchers" and end into "services" (or service admins - which could include a dispatcher)?

An OPES domain would then end at services admins (which could belong to several domains). This architecture can be supported off the shelf in any message passing (network) protocol.

1. user data flows go through the first dispatcher
2. filters it to outboud socket or to a pipe
3. receiving dispatcher triggers the proper service admin
4. service admin tells the dispatcher which service to pipe it into
5. anytime the service can call the disptacher to get additional services
6. the output is sent back to first dispatcher


From what you say there would be "data" pipes and "command" pipes, the command pipes being faster?

Reason is that there is a need for load management and therefore priorities. Pipes should permit that nicely but the sending dispatcher needs to control the throttle.


If you use a pipeline approach, would you support zappers in the pipes?

Reason of the importance of that is that if a service blocks, the preceding dispatcher must be able to zap the outband pipe and rebuild it in calling a new service admin.
jfc


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.454 / Virus Database: 253 - Release Date: 10/02/03
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>