Hello Jeremy,
I think that Tom's point of view was to allow, for example, to have all AAA
services to bind under "Myservices/AAA" on each node (and thus having the
same naming) without having some sort of "Node1/Myservices/AAA"
Cheers,
Sacha
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> bit confusing, it was just a way of implementing this.
>
> Can't this public/private distinction be collapsed into a scoped
> model where
> each object can specify which nodes of the cluster it wants to be
> replicated
> to when it binds? For example, a "private" service would bind to one node
> whereas a "public" one would bind to all (or possibly a global scope to
> allow for membership changes).
>
> This adds a third possibility where an object could bind to a subset of
> nodes, say 2 out of 3. This would directly support configurations where an
> application was only deployed on a subset, for example, without
> have to poll
> the node in turn. It would also allow for a master-slave
> configuration (like
> Weblogic's SFSB replication) to be implemented on top [to avoid
> confusion, I
> emphasize this is a voluntary M/S deployment for a specific
> service running
> on top of a federated implementation].
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
