> Hi Giorgio. > > It feels like the second option that you list is more achievable as we are > already able to start a node with a configuration, stopping the node and > providing a new configuration would seem like a good approach to better > understanding the scenario.
I might do some tries and you'll have a more complete picture. I need to gain a better knowlegde of the current trunk. > What sort of "change" events do we expect a node to respond to? Some external entity might decide that it needs to duplicate an existing component following a given contract, or remove an existing component. It could be able to reconfigure the node, here a complete picture: 1) An external actor detects that there's a contract violation (adding a component or remove the component). 2) It tries to adjust this violation reconfiguring the node in a safe way. > I ask as we > are faced with that question as soon as we step outside the convenient > position of assuming a completely static domain. I know, but seeing the old code and current code it doesn't need a heavy refactoring for add some sort of dynamicity (i.e. component replication and remotion), which is only what i need. This will open to common several pattern. Suppose a map-reduce where you'll add executors. I heard of Hessian support and it'll open to a client C++ to submit work to map executors. This is my basic scenario. I know that's feasible, but how about the costs? > For example, at the moment > we add all the contributions to the domain and then start nodes and that's > it. You can't necessarily safely change the contributions in the domain > without restarting all of the nodes to take account of the change. > > For example, Adding or removing a composite, or a component or a wire within > a composite, will likely impact the wiring across the domain. I know. The only grain that i need a component, for now. Adding or > removing policy definitions could also potentially affect many components > across the domain. In these cases nodes whose configuration is affected > would need to be restarted. It should not be in this way. If none use a component how could be affected other nodes? (If someone it use, its removal will affect other nodes). > It would be interesting if you could restate your scenario in terms of a > before and after snapshot of the contributions involved. Let me investigate a bit and i'll restate the problem. Ciao, Giorgio -- Quiero ser el rayo de sol que cada día te despierta para hacerte respirar y vivir en me. "Favola -Moda".
