Hi,
I also added a few slides to the wiki page to illustrate my thoughts on the
players and their relationships for the Domain/Node story.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Laws" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:15 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: DHT Endpoint Resolver
Ok, I think I understand. I think you are saying there is no
particular technical limitation. The overlay nodes can be part of a
Tuscany node or can be separate but you still need to be able to tell
the system where to join the DHT. So it comes down to you question
about where to get the config info....
I think having such info configurable via the command line is
perfectly reasonable.
We also already have a node config file used to describe the wider
configuration of a node [1]. This is akin to the configuration that a
domain manager might provide. If could go here also.
You've raised some interesting thoughts in my head here though. We are
at a half way house at the moment where we have instigated the
endpoint registry to give us greater flexibility in the way that
endpoints are configured and discovered. However we haven't resolved
the wider domain configuration. From the thread that Ant referenced
you see the role of various components in the infrastructure have been
discussed but not agreed. We should start having that conversation
again and extract a design. I added a diagram to the wiki [2] to help
visualize what the components might be. We probably need a new thread
for this wider picture.
Regards
Simon
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/itest/nodes/two-nodes-two-vms-test/client-config.xml
[2] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Domain
