Subject: [Rserpool] Intra-Pool State Sharing

From: Christopher Ross <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:38:34 +0200

'forgot to put this on the list...

Dear Jose,

Yes, people are very firm when it comes to keeping state sharing out
of the scope of RSerPool! This is not because state sharing seems to
so difficult and people shy away from it, it's due to the fact that it's
very, very application-specific. Looking at a call (think of telephone
calls) server application, you can have very few states to share, for
example for each possible call-ID the states "idle" "set up in
progress" "talk" and "release in progress". So this is completely
different from the ftp example.

I suppose implementing this specific state sharing mechanism "by hand"
is even possible, but seeing Randy's suggestions this may be a bit
naive...)

What advantages do we have making the PE which would like to share its
state with the other PEs a PU of its own pool? Reliability and reuse of
code? Another thing: the ENRP servers have to share state, maybe the
methods used here might be applicable to the state sharing between PEs
(probably when the application is similar to the ENRP functionality,
in terms of state, at least).

Regards,

Chris

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool