Hi Kishore Do you see any particular advantages of using pub/sub for inter-node communication over UDP/TCP? The only advantage I see is an external pub/sub being efficient than our implementations of UDP/TCP. If there is no advantage, I don't think it makes any sense.
Thanks Karthik On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Leo Neumeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure, if someone really wants it and is willing to design/implement, > I don't see why not. It's a plugin so it wouldn't require major > modifications. > > -leo > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:39 PM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, too many lists. > > > > Comm layer is supporting p2p. I remember some time back there was an ask > > for support for Active MQ in s4. The comm layer right now can support > that > > but we need to write one implementation to write/read to/from a pub sub > to > > make sure we can support it. We can do it for Active MQ. This is post 0.5 > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Leo Neumeyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Kishore, > >> > >> Seems to me that our comm layer is already implementing a type of > >> pub/sub system but with more granularity based on keys. I'm not very > >> familiar with pub/sub systems though. Can you tell us more about the > >> motivation? Is it to integrate with existing systems? In any case, you > >> are not suggesting this for v0.5, right? > >> > >> (BTW, we should move this to s4-dev) > >> > >> -leo > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, kishore g <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > In s4, the comm layer currently provides support for udp/tcp. We > should > >> add > >> > support for a pub/sub layer. There are already some pub/sub systems > out > >> > there. Any thoughts ? > >> > > >> > thanks, > >> > Kishore G > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Leo Neumeyer (@leoneu) > >> > > > > -- > > Leo Neumeyer (@leoneu) >
