alfs-ui and alfsd relationships
zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Thu Feb 3 12:51:43 PST 2005
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 01:21:38PM -0700, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
>It could be multiple people, yes.
>Or a buggy client. Anybody could write a ui. Of course one could argue that ui
>bugs are not the responsibility of alfsd. They could bring a system down to
>its knees. I wouldn't be impressed if somebody running his alfs ui to upgrade
>the LFS server causes the LFS server itself to grind to a halt. It would not
>be a problem for alfsd to only accept one active connection. It's an easy to
>implement feature and could prevent a lot of issues.
A client has two functions, control and status monitor. While the
multiple controls likely will make a disaster, multiple monitors will
usually be alright.
An example of query only client can query the memory usage, diskspace,
network bandwidth, current running task, elapsed time, progress
percentage within a profile, as well as running some nondestructive shell
commands such as uptime, ps, ...; How to distinguish them is another
problem. One could simply list allowed commands and hard code into the
The control connection better remain single, however, it is often
desirable to be hijackable. Imagin the controller move from office to
There could be seperate clients doing single job, and there could be
a client doing both control and monitor.
More information about the alfs-discuss