[nanomsg] Re: The name service for nanomsg
- From: Kaspar Schiess <kaspar.schiess@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:00:49 +0200
The example appeared in this thread: A -> B-C -> D (B-C is a device)
How would you distinguish A and C ? If you think one can bind an other
can connect. Consider the following:
A -> B-C -> D-E -> F
At first, one would have a simple topology, A consuming a service from
D. So A needs to know an address that resolves to D for its connect,
let's call that a1.
Then an admin decides to interpose the device B-C. He modifies a1 to
return B. He also comes up with another address for D (a2). This is what
C connects to.
and so on.
So really, what you need for this is a table saying
a1 B
a2 D
> Yes. Look at how DNS SRV works. It gives a list of addresses with
> priorities and weights.
Ah - for load balancing. Still, that would only mean that the table
would need to map a1 to more than just B, let's say a name resolves to
more than one string.
The requirement of being able to specify bind vs. connect is still
pulled out of thin air. I don't see the real world use of that.
> The decision of bind vs connect is also admin's task not a
> programmer's one, so it should be in name service rather than code.
Really? Is it? The admin would have to know quite a bit about the code
to be able to take the decision of connecting somewhere vs. having
connects be made. Which makes him a programmer in my book.
I cannot see a situation where the underlying problem could not be
solved differently (PUSH vs. PULL, active connect vs. passive connect).
Do you have specific situations in mind? You gave some examples on IRC,
but as a sysadmin I don't follow your reasoning why there's no other
way. And as a programmer, this just looks like a problem that is
orthogonal to what nanomsg does. It could well be outside of nanomsg and
work just as well.
my 2 cents
kaspar
Other related posts:
