On 16 February 2011 06:24, Paul Larson <paul.lar...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki < > zygmunt.kryni...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> >> Yeah, when you mentioned this now I started thinking. Do we really need a >> daemon-like component for the dispatcher in general or just in the farm >> environment. Can we assume that having the implementation the "daemon" can >> be replaced with a command line tool that simply interacts with one device - >> strictly for development purpose? I'm thinking about stuff like volatile >> device state and device monitoring requirements. >> > The only reason I see for having a daemon at all is to pick up jobs from > the queue. In reality, I think even having the queue is overkill for the > moment. The actual job dispatcher portion, that is, the piece that takes a > job control file, parses it, initiates deployment to a device, ... can > absolutely be a command line piece. We're going to have to have one of > these processes running for each job running anyway, and it greatly > simplifies things not only for us, but for anyone who wants to run a > smaller-scale version of this. > Totally agree, that is what I meant with three-layered Dispatcher, you can see it in the awful picture I sent previously when reviewing the Dispatcher. First layer to pick up jobs from queue and assign them to second layer, which we call server dispatcher today, and which then uses the third layer called client dispatcher on the board. Having a smaller-scale version would be very useful as well. > > -Paul Larson >
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
