Hey Pat,
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+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.
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+* 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.
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+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.
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+* 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.
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+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)
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+* 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 :(
Post by pfelt-Urct4Ww6//Pz1n+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.