Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["Mal Lansell" <mlansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Van den Panhuyzen" <tomvdp@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta


> - no more seperate xpl hub service
> - no single critical service
> - every xpl msg gets transmitted because from the moment there is an
> xpl app there is also an xpl hub
> - if you have only one xpl app, things work like expected
> - if you have 2, switch them on in any order
> - if you have more, idem
> - completely transparent to the developer, just use an xplListener
> object like before
> - if one hub goes down, the next re-uses the client list from the
> previous, so lost msgs are reduced to the minimum
>
> I honestly think V3 is simpler and more robust.
>

The mutex system you use is a .NET feature isn't it?

What about non-.NET apps?  If we were to go down the route of allowing any
xPL app to be a hub, and for the hub to migrate if the current one fails,
then I say it would be best if all xPL apps could do this.  That means
using
a system that doesn't rely on a .NET feature.

If a .NET system were devised, then the problem of incompatible hubs would
eventually go away - we could update the existing apps/libs and make it a
rule of hub implementation that being able to take over as hub is
supported.

Mal