This sort of experimentation sounds ideal for a branch. It sounds like there will be modification to the broker so having that on a branch will give you isolation to allow for testing.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Regards Martin 2008/10/20 Ted Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Gordon Sim wrote: >> >> I've used your example to try and clarify my own thoughts on how this a >> little. It may be that I'm just repeating your suggestion, I've added a bit >> more detail so that if thats the case its hopefully clearer and if I'm still >> missing something that too will be easier to point out. >> >> > I've come to the conclusion that merely thinking about the protocol and > algorithms for dynamic binding is insufficient to solve the problem. So, to > make progress, I've modeled the broker in a test/simulation environment to > experiment with and validate candidate solutions in various federation > topologies. The things I'm most interested in are: > > 1) Protocol self-stabilization, > 2) zero failures to deliver messages to appropriately bound consumers, > 3) minimized delivery of messages to exchanges which have no real consumers > bound, and > 4) maximized tolerance of variations in topology. > > Having gone through a number of iterations over the weekend, I think I have > arrived at an acceptable solution. > > Question: is there an appropriate location in the SVN tree to put model code > like this simulator? It's not a customer deliverable, but it is a design > tool that may have value for the community. > > I'll provide details of the newest proposal under separate cover. > > -Ted > > -- Martin Ritchie
