Consider looking at the approach that Gnutella takes. It achieves an effect similar to Napster but without a central server. Perhaps a similar model with group restrictions or membership could serve as a base for at least some parts of the problem - file synch, etc.? I think the project is on SourceForge. The general approach to file synchronization taken by Code Co-op (a distributed version control system using email) www.relisoft.com is rather well explained. It essentially uses individual machines as servers for one or more projects - different projects have different 'homes'. Thanks, Gary -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [REBOL] Some ideas to collaborative environments Re:(4) Well, a permenent agent is from a perspective a server. Peer to Peer can also be viewed as client/server to client/server. Your permenent agent distinction does help me think in terms of who will be serving, say a group leader aka server. A series of backup leaders could be made possibly. My backup leaders idea is stinky, but may be workable. A problem I see that we must deal with is can we apply current standards such as IRC, NNTP, FTP, etc, with a non-specific server type arrangement. I dont think so. Therefore we must make either toss these protocols (yuck!), or adopt a leader/server style environment. I guess this means we must make it very easy for people to create a server, and deal with the server not being available. Maybe this is just an issue with NNTP? FTP sites are a dime a dozen, and I dont know how IRC works. Maybe we should just focus on the server end, most/all the OS's have the clients available. Make it a peice of cake for anybody to start thier own IRC, NNTP, FTP, Mail, mail list, and WWW server. --Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Am Sam, 23 Sep 2000 schrieben Sie: > > For application proliferation purposes, not requiring a server would help > > out alot. > > Yes this is why I would prefer such a solution. I think I do not relly like > the centralisitc approach. > > I also dislike conservative client/server paradigms. > I would prefer a mobile-agent based solution. > I had this idea some time ago: > > If I want something done, I sit down on my (dialup) computer. > I'm offline and open my personal-agent communication program. > My personal agent appears and I describe him the task he has to do. > I go online and my agent transfers its corpus over the line to one of the > 24h online agent runtime environments. Now I can go offline, while my agent > e. g. watches the stocks (and warning me by SMS if something interesting > happens) > > Perhaps a similar agent-based approach will be interesting for the > collaborative environment. > The whole collaborative environment coult consist of temporary > and permanent online agents that communicate to each other. > > So one permanent Agent could serve the Environment by providing > access to some storageplaces of its own. > > A temporary Agent could transfer a new file into the Virtual Space. > > Whats your opinion on this? > > Jochen -- Ryan Cole Programmer Analyst www.iesco-dms.com 707-468-5400 "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -Einstein
