From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1eef1e815cf70416
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr2558581pbc.0.1339243446427;
        Sat, 09 Jun 2012 05:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni33541pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Distributed Systems Annex, data sharing between programs
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 05:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <6c92c206-0bfe-49ad-a732-fa93949e3032@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
References: <0d661453-423c-484b-90cd-4e80ffe1db5b@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
 <jqu7qb$i1h$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.3.40.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1339243446 18409 127.0.0.1 (9 Jun 2012 12:04:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:04:06 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.3.40.82;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/12.0,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-06-09T05:02:19-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 9 Cze, 03:10, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> >The solution is to stop thinking in terms of RPC (remote procesure
> >calls), and start thinking in terms of messages.
>
> =A0 How about asynchronous remote procedure calls. =A0They just
> fire-and-forget

Exactly. The difference is that with messages you do not have to
*forget*.
Firing and forgetting is easy - but firing and getting results later
on or just checking what has succeeded and what has not is an entirely
different use case. Messaging provides a valid solution to this
problem, while RPC not so much.

>=A0Or in the
> example of possibly dead targets, use synchronous RPC that handles
> Communication_Error.

That can take several hundred milliseconds (or even many seconds) for
a failing call. Remember - you have *thousands* of targets.

> =A0 But setting up the partition mapping for thousands of partitions migh=
t
> indeed be inappropriate. =A0;)

Yep. The point is - this is no longer a single program. Just as our
communication here is not between separate partitions of a single
human entity, but rather between separate and autonomous entities.
Look, we don't even need to be awake at the same time for this
communication to happen. Why? How would you do that with "calls"
instead of "messages"?
Our posts here are messages, not calls.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com