Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["Mal Lansell" <mlansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, that's that complaint dealt with ;-)

One more thing - if a hub stops working, it's very likely to be stuck, or
have crashed, i.e will not necessarily have quit in a clean way.  In that
case it won't it still be holding the mutex?  That means hub transfer only
takes place when the hub application is closed, and is not a protection
against errors in the hub code.

It seems to me that making the hub code more robust and fault tolerant in
the first place would be a more useful approach.

Mal






----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Van den Panhuyzen" <tomvdp@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta


>
> Mutexes are really a core element in Windows.
> See:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dllproc/bas
e/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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com
http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
> To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
> To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>