Anonymous user
Talk:Distributed programming: Difference between revisions
→Insufficiently general?: reply
(→Insufficiently general?: new section) |
(→Insufficiently general?: reply) |
||
Line 9:
A lot of the examples are slapped with this label. Now what is a "sufficient" one? One that can pass arbitrary sized data blocks? One that can also mark native/network endianess? One that can annotate the data's structure? Or even with extended attributes/metadata? Can we just send XML along with schema in utf-8 which must be fully strict, hence very likely to be correct but going to be horribly slow? Maybe this task needs some review. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote the original task. My intent was that it should show the use of ''distributed programming'' as opposed to simply being able to use the network — we have other tasks for that. The facilities used to accomplish the task should be suitable for ''performing a complex task distributed across several machines''. Or something like that. Trying to be sufficiently specific about sufficiently general, I'd say it should be a protocol/library which at least supports a reasonable set of common data structures, and preferably has a notion of messages/RPCs, such that the author of the example does not have to ''invent a protocol'', especially not a data serialization scheme, as opposed to just spreading their program across the network.
I hope this ramble was somewhat clarifying. —[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 04:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||