Re: [Vrs-development] VRS and SEE/DEE goals

[Chris Smith]

On Monday 25 March 2002 15:46, Bill wrote:

> --- Chris Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 1. The service requires a huge dataset/DB which is
> > only available on the
> >    owners LDS.
> > 2. The service really does contain sensitive
> > information and the owner really
> >    would rather it be held locally (though this goes
> > against the whole VRS
> >    philosophy.
> >
>
> :)  Perhaps our philosophy has expanded a little bit
>
> here with the stand alone LDS idea.  But it doesn't
> seem to have changed the design of the LDS itself
> much.


Remember the 'proxy' thing that we discussed a way back?
That came about whilst we were considering non-static
resources. The above points qualify a non-static resource,
and through the approach of LDS's keepeng these resources
local, I think we can facilitate dynamic content.

> I was thinking that NO VRS will accept unknown LDS's.
> We must remember to keep service users and node owners
> clearly seperate.

This is good because if one could have a VRS containing
an unbounded set of LDS's, then the number of participant
LDS's every other LDS needs to know about and track 
becomes unmanagable.  

I'd rather see the members of an VRS be controlled.  

> Although, I suppose it would be quite possible to run
> a VRS that would accept anyone, I don't see a reason
> to do this.  But there most certainly might be one
> that I just don't see.

I've been viewing the VRS as 'open' because it's the
worse case scenario - and someone's bound to ask for
it.  If our architecture will support this, then it's
a bonus - even if it's never used...... however, like
I said above, it's a real nightmare.

Chris

-- 
Chris Smith
  Technical Architect - netFluid Technology Limited.
  "Internet Technologies, Distributed Systems and Tuxedo Consultancy"
  E: address@hidden  W: http://www.nfluid.co.uk