Re: Hub Discussion

["Paul Robinson" <ukcueman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > For these reasons, I'd prefer a separate hub that does nothing
but hub duties. This
should
> > include logging and may include a GUI to view events. Whether the
GUI is built-in to
the
> > hub, or the GUI opens a separate socket to the hub to listen for
log messages, I don't
> > really mind.
>
> I agree -- mostly.  I think while a GUI is a nice thing to have, it
> shouldn't be in the requirements for a hub and if it is optionally
provided,
> it should be separate program that can talk to the hub.
>
> My thinking is that 1) not all runtime environments are going to have
a GUI
> to run on (under linux, unix, solaris, OSX, etc you can run a daemon
(like a
> windows service) on a server that doesn't have any GUI installed) and
2)
> adding a GUI to the actual hub means complicating it and I feel that
the
> hubs really should be small (easier to debug/design) and as hardened
as
> possible.  Having a GUI doesn't necessarily run counter to these
things, but
> it does allow for GUI related problems and adds a lot of complexity.

Perhaps I wasn't clear - we seem to agree completely. I think the minimum
for a hub should
be:
(1) Regular hub duties
(2) Logging events in human readable form
(3) Ability to turn logging on/off or control what gets logged

To provide a GUI that shows the internals of the hub operation would be
optional, and
preferably done externally by a separate process that connects to the hub
over a tcp
socket (not necessary the xpl port) to insulate the hub from GUI issues.

Paul




___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com