On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 13:30 -0500, Jonathan Siwek wrote:
> Seems clunky and could get dicey
Agreed. :) It'd just be a heuristic to catch some obvious errors. I
don't think there's more we can do, we can't really catch loops
statically by looking at the code.
Robin
--
Robin Sommer *
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:16 PM Robin Sommer wrote:
> > I'd be more comfortable if one could automate answering the question:
> > "if I add a subscription to a given node in the network, will I create
> > a cycle?".
>
> Hmm ... What about a test mode where we'd spin up a dummy cluster
>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:15 -0500, Jonathan Siwek wrote:
> I don't see why not, but it takes planning and prudence on everyone's
> part (including users) to not break that rule.
Yeah, question is we can pre-configure the cluster so that user's
don't need to worry about it most of the time.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:02 AM Robin Sommer wrote:
> True, although it's not cycles in the connection topology that matter,
> it's cycles in topic subscriptions.
Right, good point.
> I need to think about this a bit
> more (and I need to remind myself how our topics currently look like)
I
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:30 PM Azoff, Justin S wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2018, at 6:10 PM, Jon Siwek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:55 PM Azoff, Justin S wrote:
> >
> >> I do agree that there's room for a lot of simplification, for example a
> >> worker broadcasting a message
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 14:47 -0500, Jonathan Siwek wrote:
> Broker does not yet have automatic multihop where subscriptions are
> globally flooded automatically.
Yep, that's what I meant: dynamic multihop where each node tracks what
its peers are subscribing to, and forwards messages
