Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

[Tom Van den Panhuyzen <tomvdp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mutexes are really a core element in Windows.
See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/base/mutex_objects.asp


On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:49:28 -0000, Mal Lansell <mlansell@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> ----- 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
>
>