On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 12:36 -0500, Jonathan Siwek wrote:
> * publish() API simplifications/compressions (pending decision on
> exactly what those should be)
Yeah, with an eye on the semantics for forwarding (now and later),
and whether to raise published events locally as well if the host
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:55 AM Robin Sommer wrote:
> That's actually something I realized yesterday: we don't have direct
> worker-to-worker communication right now, correct? A worker cannot
> just publish to "bro/cluster/workers".
Right, here's a crude graphic of the cluster layout from the
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 10:53 AM Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> Yeah, I realize that. A direct port of the old logic was of course the
> goal so far, with the drawbacks of that approach accepted &
> understood. That's what's in place now; that's great and exactly as
> planned. We can get 2.6 out this
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 14:20 +, Justin Azoff wrote:
> There's also a bunch of places that I think were written standalone first and
> then updated to work on a cluster in
> place resulting in some awkwardness..
Yeah, indeed, that's another other source of complexity with these
scripts.
Yeah, I realize that. A direct port of the old logic was of course the
goal so far, with the drawbacks of that approach accepted &
understood. That's what's in place now; that's great and exactly as
planned. We can get 2.6 out this way, and it'll be fine.
My point is that now also seems like a
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:05 +0200, Jan Grashöfer wrote:
> What I can recall, it's about simplifying the API in the light of
> multi-hop routing, which is not fully functional yet.
To level up a bit, what I'm hoping for is that we can find some easy
ways to simplify the API a bit more now,
> On Aug 6, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
>- Relaying is hardly used.
>
>
>- There's a lot of checks in publishing code of the type "if I am
> (not) of node type X".
I think these 2 are somewhat related. Since there weren't higher level things
like relaying, in order
