On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Erich <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Should we create a proxy server for beanstalkd? It could be a true > proxy (think lighttpd in proxy mode) or a redirecting broker (a > beanstalk 302 equivelent).
It would be neat to explore this, but I'm afraid either of these would cut into beanstalk's speed significantly. Maybe it wouldn't be too much of a hit for persistent mode. > 2. Should we have a standard way of implementing a multiclient, so > that the pybeanstalk version doesn't conflict with the erlang version? > > 3. Should we leave it up to the individual user/develoers? I like the idea of arriving at some best practices for client writers, but even if a client doesn't follow them, there shouldn't be too much of a conflict (at least no more than you'd get on a single beanstalkd instance already). So I feel like 2 and 3 can go together. > 4. Should we create a new project (for those that care to) which is a > generic "server broker" (I actually kinda like this idea.. i may do it > anyway), and would be usable with beanstalk, rabitmq, memcache, > etc...? This is an awesome idea. I think it would be best done at the IP layer, though. A smart switch or router could do it transparently. I don't know if such a thing exists already, but I wouldn't be surprised if IOS has such a feature somewhere. Or maybe some fancy iptables rules and some glue to automate them. This could also be used for a super-fast http load balancer. kr --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beanstalk-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/beanstalk-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
