Hi Bernard,
I think it is very fortunate that your and Andrea's approach are different and
that the implementations are done in separate parts of the code. This way we
will perhaps be able to test both and compile the optimal solution out of
both. In the kernel world it is quite normal to have two components doing the
same job in a slightly different way. And there's often somebody morphing an
even better solution out of the two ones.
Can you submit your changes as patch? I remember the flamethrower to need a
lot of preparations like
- setting up the flamethrower.conf
- defining the "modules"
- allocating unique ports for every module
- re-starting flamethrowerd (the senders)
- getting the ports info to the nodes
- ...
Some of the steps seem similar to bittorrent but some can certainly be
skipped. I'd be curious to see how you deal with this in your approach.
But actually I am thinking about Paul's question and how to deal with updating
an image in bittorrent way. To play with that I need _some_ implementation of
the BT transport.
Regards,
Erich
On Monday 09 January 2006 20:07, Bernard Li wrote:
> I'm still waiting on Brian to comment on whether to integrate it as a
> flamethrower transport or separately (like how Andrea has done it).
>
> I think my code already have some integration with Andrea's work - the
> major difference now is he is using the official python BT and I'm using
> libBT.
>
> I should be able to check my stuff in soon.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bernard
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Sisuite-devel mailing list
Sisuite-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-devel
