Hi all, For the last year or so I have been working at Soops in
Amsterdam. www.soops.nl . One of the first tasks
I did was to implement a more reliable communications layer for open talk that
would automatically recover from network outages etc. With the fine team here
we have really stress tested this and it is in production with their energy
trading system. I got permission to put it in the public repository and share
it with everyone under the MIT license. So if you ever wanted to get rid of all those exception
handlers and headaches with remote open talk sends etc, give the
Opentalk-Reliable-Communication-Layer a try. It will make life a lot simpler
for you out of the box and works for 7.6 7.7 and the current 7.8 development
track. It also works in the 7.4 and 7.5 images as well although I do not
guarantee future changes will work in these unless I have time and money to do
so ( J ) I intend to add features to
this etc and also make it better and am open to suggestions and feature
requests etc. We encourage folks to give it a try. The package comments have some code an examples to get
you started. It has features like specifying if you want message order
maintained for an object (default) or you can specify which selectors can get
sent in any order etc. If there is a communication break the system can recover
from where it left off including getting any replies that you missed etc. It
will maintain integrity among threads communicating to a remote object. With the recovery application you can extend it to do things
like failover rather easily without the calling thread being the wise to the
fact that you have sent the request elsewhere for a response etc. the Recovery
application also provides the developer with staus of the remote process etc.
so you can see if you are deadlock rather than a communication problem etc. you
can test and ping the remote broker etc. It is pluggable so you can put in you own recovery
application if there is a sever failure in the system and the application
developer now has a lot more options for dealing with communication failures.
You have the ability to skip messages and proceed or kill the particular thread
on both client and server. I encourage folks to give it a try and any questions or
problems or request you can post to list and cc me J Kind Regards, Sean Glazier Soops.nl freelance small talker _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Hi Sean,
this is a bit besides the point but have you or anyone worked on Opentalk's overly specific (and I would say abstraction breaking, not merely leaking) remote object identifiers? Last time I worked with Opentalk, I couldn't use it to create a peer to peer protocol because all the IDs were specific to individual machines (they were IPs) rather than being generic (protocol / locale) and calling on some kind of mechanism to dereference them. I told um Mark? when I met him but I don't think it was a priority at the time. So, has anyone worked on this problem? I'm thinking you might be interested in this given that setting aside the whole issue that P2P networks are hardly novel nowadays and really need to be accomodated, there's the fact they ... *enhance reliability* dum dum dum ... by extending fault tolerance over space rather than just time. So basically, have you dealt with this issue and if not, is this something that would interest you guys? Regards, Richard Kulisz RSVP - opentalk is an issue rather near and dear to my heart _______________________________________________ vwnc mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vwnc |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |