Top things to see in first ALFS
zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Tue Feb 1 19:55:20 PST 2005
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:41:49PM -0600, James Robertson wrote:
>Interesting, i figured this all was understood a long time ago.
Some one think this way, some one does not as shown in this thread.
Personally I don't see the other way much worse than this way. Which
I find funny that we just asume without concensus and went aheah in
the SRS/discussion. After all, the roll of client/server is the single
most policy need be specified. Without that, how one supposed to code?
>client does _nothing_ but send a profile to the server,
or instruct the server to choose a profile locally, or run the
>control the server
That need be more specific. What kind of control one would desire?
>and get messages back from the server in its most simplest form.
And what kind of messages one would like to get back. For the
simplest, it is just a response such as "Command received",
"Affirmative", "Command impossible"; For the largest, the client may
interested reading all the log out put.
> All grunt work and statefull information is handled by the server.
>This means the logs are kept on the server, source files are kept there,
>and all processing/validation of profiles is handled there as well. If
>we want the server to be able to "reuse" a parsed profile, then that
>should be kept on the server as well. The only thing I could see of
>value in a client is XML editing and log viewing/searching functions.
No comment at this time. Only thing I want to add is the profiles can
be an already existing profile on the server, so the client just
instructs the server to pick one or the server pick one at the time of
More information about the alfs-discuss