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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5439c15172a5d16d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-23 12:14:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.213.112.26!newsfeed1.ulv.nextra.no!nextra.com!news4.ulv.nextra.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Frank" From: "Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C45556F.CE05AD1F@labe.felk.cvut.cz> <3C485758.F69BC3BE@labe.felk.cvut.cz> <3C4D7C10.463DEE55@labe.felk.cvut.cz> <3C4F0F89.848BA2C0@labe.felk.cvut.cz> Subject: Re: Client connected to two servers in Glade X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.134.164 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:14:34 MET X-Trace: news4.ulv.nextra.no 1011816874 130.67.134.164 Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 20:14:34 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19254 Date: 2002-01-23T20:14:34+00:00 List-Id: > > But the partition manager (main/boot partition) is a strong centralised > element which is the bottleneck of the system. All partitions would have > the partition manager as a boot server. Several problems arises then: > What about unreliable communication channels? Where should it be > located?... I think the situation wouldn't be better by using mirror > boot servers. Maybe I'm too interested in low-level details, but such > questions are important for our application: it is an industrial > application which should be tolerant to connection errors with distant > Partitions_1. Is it possible to split the system, restrict dependencies > and not to build one complex distributed system for all Partitions_1? > > I'd like to find a solution using Glade first, because the current > implementation is in it and it saves a lot of work. The current > implementations is standard client/server application. But our customer > changed its specification and he wants to see data from at least two > Partitions_1 simultaneously in one window. > > E.g. using sockets it is possible to have a client connected to two > servers. The connection is established only by knowing "host:port" for > each server. In Glade, the client have to connect to a boot server and > then get a link to the other server through an access-to-?-type. But it > leads to building very dependent systems. Could you suggest another > solution? > > Thanks a lot, its very instructive discussion for me. > If it is so that you have only one user interface client: Wouldn't it be a solution to put the server close to your clients office? Then it is only necessary to have open lines from his office to the nodes. If one of the nodes is unavailable then the fun is over anyway wether you use sockets or not. The same goes for the boot location, your customers office is the only node (??) that needs communication to the other for the other purposes too. If your lines keeps dropping, you might catch some exceptions in the application to retry later. About my question of the versions. I have a couple of problems with GLADE, and it would be interesting if someone with a 3-14 or higher could have tested a little program for me :-) ??? Frank