Re: A proposal for a General Clustering Framework

[Alan Robertson <alanr@unix.sh>]

Bill Todd wrote:
> 
> Please ignore the comment about positional parameters I just sent:  on
> re-reading your post, I see that it was the RPC argument sequence rather
> than the XML representation that caused the issue.  Of course, if all you're
> going to use is single-argument RPCs (to avoid that issue), that further
> calls into question whether the RPC framework is really buying you all that
> much.

RPC is inherent in some parts of the world in some places.  Having
rpc-with-replies and rpc-without-replies is a unifying concept.

Unifying concepts are almost always good.

RPC isn't such a big deal such that losing some or all of it would lose much
in the first place ;-)

You can use more than one argument if you want -- but you're asking for
trouble in the case of upgrades.  Having a single structure with arbitrary
data below it is *at least* as powerful as having an ordered list of unnamed
arguments each of can be of arbitrary data.  Having positional parameters
adds no power or simplicity to RPC.  What it adds is familarity.  Which is
not such a big deal to trade off for upgradeability.

	-- Alan Robertson
	   alanr@unix.sh

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