Re: Network Transparency

[Michael Adams]

This it dynamiclly loads is very good news.  I wasn't
thinking of loading the backend over the network. 
Here is what I was thinking.  Normally you have an app
that makes calls to a back.  One would write a new
back that would be loaded with the app on machine A. 
This back would forward all calls made to it over the
network to machine B.  Machine B is running an app
that is a network front and that receives these calls
and passes them to whatever back is installed on
Machine B.

Here is the non-network typical case:

App --> back-art

Using X11 as the transport (which you mentioned) we
have this:

App --> back-x11 ==Over Network==> X Server

But here is what I'm thinking about:

App --> back-net ==Over Network==> 
front-net-app (need better name) --> back-art

The back-net/front-net-app pair acts as a tunnel to
allow an app on machine A to use the back on machine
B.  Also you aren't required to use X11 at all (though
you could if you wanted to).

Is this possible?  Is there already a project doing
this?  It seems like a logical step.  I run Windows
but use lots of Linux apps so I have to use X11 over
the network all the time which is slow.  But the
advantage of being able to do this outweighs the cost
of slow response.  Being able to run applications
remotely is *very* powerfull and usefull.  I just
*can't* live with out my remote network apps.  Also,
since GNUStep is more high level in the calls it makes
(i.e. draw button instead of draw poly), I imagine
streaming them over the network would be greatly more
efficient (bandwidth wise) than X11.

If there is not already a project that is implementing
this kind of net-back, I'm very sorely tempted to do
it myself.  "It shouldn't be too hard."  (He he,
famous last words.)  I probably don't have enough
time, but ... arrg ... must resist ... coding urge. 
Like I said, I'm sorely tempted.

Michael D. Adams
mdmkolbe@yahoo.com

--- Martin Brecher <martin@mb-itconsulting.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael, -
> 
> the GNUstep backend is loaded dynamically. You can
> even have several 
> backends installed (e.g. the default xlib backend
> and the libart 
> backend) and tell GNUstep which one to load using
> the user defaults (you 
> will learn about that later).
> 
> But, you cannot load backends over the network as
> you describe it. But 
> with the X11 backends you can of course address a
> remote X11 display 
> using -display or -NSHost on the command line. (I
> haven't tried that 
> with GNUstep myself.)
> 
> For all other aspects of network transparency,
> GNUstep has Distributed 
> Objects (DO). This technique allows applications to
> access remote 
> objects as if they were local. There is a clustering
> project called 
> Zillion <http://zillion.sourceforge.net/> which
> employs the means of DO.
> 
> Greetings,
> Martin Brecher
> 
> Michael Adams wrote:
> > I just found out about GNUStep.  It sounds like a
> very
> > exciting project.  I have one question though. 
> Does
> > GNUStep support network transparency like X11
> does?
> > 
> > I suppose one could build a back-network and then
> have
> > it connect to, for example, a
> front-network/back-w32
> > client app.  But that would require applications
> to
> > dynamically load their back library.  Otherwise
> they
> > would have to target back-network when they
> compile
> > and that isn't very transparent now is it?  So are
> the
> > back libraries dynamically loaded?
> > 
> > Ok I guess that's two questions instead of one so
> I'll
> > stop here.
> > 
> > Michael D. Adams
> > mdmkolbe@yahoo.com
> > 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com