[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gomd-devel] Agreement on Friday night

From: johnycsh
Subject: Re: [gomd-devel] Agreement on Friday night
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 18:54:43 -0600 (CST)

Hey guys, looks good to me. My only question is why the udp for internode
communication? If we were to use tcp inteligently (say keep connectoins
open for 20 mins at time to avoid overhard of setup) we wounlt have to
worry about implementing error checking or anything else on top of udp.
Just curious.

 Did i miss the meeting? i was jaut about to send off
an email expressing my confusion, i guess i have to get used to
international times.

btw, im just about to hop on irc

On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Fierro Massimo wrote:

> When everybody had gone and only the brave italian developers still hold on 
> they have come to an agreement to bu submitted to the popular vote: let us 
> know if you like these specs! :D
> NeXuS, Rejected, MCaserta
> 1) Syntax is kept similar for C methods and Telnet commands.
>     e.g. string get( string nodes, string command, string args )
> 2) Telnet commands synopsis is:  GET|SET [COMMA_SEPARATED_NODE_RANGES|ALL] 
>     e.g. GET 1-5,6,17-21 LOAD
> 3) UDP shall be used for GOMD<->GOMD intercommunication
> 4) TCP shall be used for Telnet communication
> 5) TCP/UDP replies contain values in the following format: NODE_ID:VALUE. 
> Values are comma-separated.
> 6) APIs will be as simple as possible
> /******    Samples of communication    ******/
> user/GOMD"client": GET 1 LOAD
> GOMD"server": 1:1000
> user/GOMD"client": GET ALL LOAD
> GOMD"server": 1:1000,2:555,3:61,4:565,5:565
> user/GOMD"client": GET 1-4,7 LOAD
> GOMD"server": 1:1000,2:555,3:61,4:565,7:5651

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]