Hey Pat, On 08/25/2009 05:55 AM, [email protected] wrote: > i'd love to have a formal meeting on 0.7. i think we have a lot of good > changes to make for then (more inline below). unfortunately given our > overlap, the first time i'll have available is next friday (~2 weeks) as i > work this friday :( is that too far out?
No, I think that's fine - I think it's important us two in particular can make it, and it's not like there isn't plenty to get on with in the meantime. > >> * better bongo-manager; >> > i'm interested to see what you've worked up on this as this is a pretty > critical piece to getting agents running on multiple boxes. we had > originally thought there would be one bongo-manager per server that would > be running and that they would somehow communicate which had the store on > it. > Yeah, and I think that continues to be the plan. What I'll try to do is write something up more fully which goes into more details about this, because although I some initial code it can still be changed. > the only worry i have is running into locking issues, though > the worry might be completely unfounded depending on how we are going to > implement the queue inside the store. > Well, originally, I was thinking we'd use the _system store and each agent would create/be given two collections in there - incoming and outgoing. Stuff would get moved into incoming, the agent would process it and move it/rewrite it into outgoing, and the queue agent would take it from there. Using separate collections should mean that locking doesn't become an issue at all, but if there are any problems it shouldn't be too hard to solve them. I'm planning on adding in the last bit of store locking in the next rev, but I don't really think it would affect how a queue might work - the only thing we're missing from store in terms of functionality at the moment is a store-to-store copy. >> * direct message queues for agents to talk to each other [store?] >> > this is an interesting thought that we haven't really discussed yet (that > i can remember). agents talking to each other would be nice so that we > could get connmgr type functionality back in the future in a more sane > way. i suppose this could also be used for snmp stats though we had > thought of using bongo-manager for that. > Yeah, and this is also crucial for an improved bongo-manager in other ways - e.g., bongo-manager needs to be able to tell agents to shut down, and obviously if the agent is on another system you can't signal it :D Briefly what I had in mind was an extremely simple publish/subscribe system a little like the current WATCH setup. However, currently we really don't deal with asynchronous data very well at all :( The alternative I had in mind was essentially using a jabber-like transport, which is naturally very good at this kind of thing. However, I'm not sure I want to go down that road before 1.0 really. > tls... i've spent the better part of the last two hours looking at this > and i don't see any reason that this shouldn't work unless there is > something silly going on with the hostnames. i tried to connect to > bongo-test.info via the gnutls test tool and found that it denied me > access because "localhost" wasn't in the cert. i'm sending a separate > email to jur to see if he's got some odd nat going on that might > complicate things, however my tests to the domain he was having issues > with seem to run fine off my self signed cert. > Potentially I guess there is a gnutls versioning issue here. As an aside; how did you create your cert - was it just what Bongo created on install? (I've had suspicions for a while that our self-created cert isn't quite right) > * full-text indexing [store] > > no real comment on this, other than i'm sure we need it for conversations > and we lost it when we dropped clucene? > Actually, it's not for conversations - we basically handle that already (I think - the code is there, it's extremely untested though). It's simply for just searching stuff. Currently we support enough search to do IMAP but it's not very smart and doesn't index data. IIRC, though, the IMAP model is incompatible with the full-text model anyway :( >> It's not really an awful lot; and aside from that it's basically the web >> bits which are the killer. >> > i totally agree here. if we could get UI functionality like what DF gave > us i think we'd rock as a full up system as we currently stand, but then > again i'm a bit biased :) > Indeed :-) Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel
