On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:42:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:18:55AM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > > > > > -sharing of components, load balancing: > > > if components _only_ rely on msgs sent to them (it's their only input) > > > then having to identical copies is just a matter of sending the same > > > msgs to them. you will probably need to think about some sort of > > > synchronisation, as events might take longer on one remote link than on the > > > other. > > > > Is there a simple, real-world example of this problem? > > A simple one is that events must arrive in order. The "do_work" event should > arrive before the "cancel_work" event (let's assume it was sent this way :). > if the events travel across several nodes (for example routing was changed > due to network or system load) they will need more time on one route. This > will not happen in small programs, since their simple design won't make > these scenarios possible. But if we have distributed applications we have > to think about these issues.
This level of routing and robustness may be more than POE can support practically, but I've noted it in the document. === Distributed Computing === Torvald Riegel suggested that POE should handle message sequencing and routing for distributed computing systems. Distributed Computing is, however, a large and deep field, and we may get lost in it without a guide. Without a distributed computing guru to help design this, we may need to support it at two levels. Early support might be point-to-point routing with acknowledgment of (and hooks for) a better system later. -- Rocco Caputo / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / poe.perl.org / poe.sf.net
