Re: A proposal for a General Clustering Framework

[Michael E Brown <michael_e_brown@dell.com>]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Alan Robertson wrote:

>
> AFAIK, the existing libraries require HTTP, and expect it.  Read the spec -
> it *certainly* requires it.  Maybe we can write libraries in several
> languages which create/extract the XML out of the "envelope" and only keep
> those up to date.  This wouldn't be so bad...  If the libraries in all these
> other languages have ways of bypassing the HTTP protocol and only dealing
> with what the spec calls the "payload" along with information extracted from
> the "envelope", then they might be of use.  If they assume HTTP they are
> useful only under the surgeon's knife ;-)
>

I use the Perl code as an example because that is what I am familiar with.

The Perl code implemented SOAP first, then the implementor went back and
implemented XMLRPC because they share a lot of the same code. The perl
SOAP/XMLRPC library is transport-independent. You basically say, "I want
to make XMLRPC calls, and by the way, please use such-and-such transport."

I haven't done it, so this might be a leap, but it looks pretty
straightforward to implement another transport.

So, the cluster framework would require a bit of surgery to be useful in
another language (basically, reimplement whatever transport you come up
with), but it would be a one-time cost. The transport code would not have
to keep up with library API changes.

--
Michael


Linux-cluster: generic cluster infrastructure for Linux
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-cluster/