Re: Standalone xPL Hub Summary

[Gerry Duprey <gerry@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Howdy,

> I definitely like that last proposal. There is in fact no need for
special
> packets. When a hub is up an xpl app sending a heartbeat will also
receives

I was going to write that apps that do not send heartbeats would be in
trouble.  Except that basically, even if you are a logger (something that
never sends, just listens), you have to send a heartbeat or something for
the hub to even know you are there.  So really, no problem there.  This
would be a variation of the config.* stuff that sends hbeats at a faster
rate than normal.

For this, I think a once-a-second message would be fine. It won't flood the
network because as soon as a message is turned around, the app would stop
sending them.  Meaning that at most 1 or 2 of these messages would get out
at initial startup.

It might be nice to use a schema sub-type though so others who may get a
whiff of these packets will be able to ignore them.  Heck, the hub could
even "filter" them out and only return them to the sender (though
in
general, hubs are pretty simple critters and should probably stay that
way).

How about a hbeat.probe and config.probe schema type for these types of
messages?  I would think this would be pretty compatible with anything out
there today (which probably discard things they don't understand) and
allows
others that might care about this to filter for it.

I'm really liking this idea as I see it as not only solving a myriad of
issues, but being pretty compatible with what is out there now (since it's
unlikely every xPL app would be updated at once).  Compatible and clean.

Any thoughts on using a .probe schema type for these messages?

Gerry
--
Gerry Duprey
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
http://www.cdp1802.org