Brad Chapman wrote: > > I really just don't see the need for a central server in the > manner that you describe. Can you explain why you think it is better > to funnel all connections through a server? In the proposal I just sent, I outlined an approach whereby every version of vsh has the ability to share its filesystem/storage with others. This means we can set up private, peer-2-peer connections OR public, central servers. I think the system in the proposal does NOT mean that EVERYTHING is mediated through one server. EVERYTHING is mediated through whatever server has the filesystem/storage, which can be one big one on the Internet, a peer's server, or YOUR OWN LOCAL server. > Lets just think about a simple conversation between two peers. > The way I am envisioning it we can have a simple two way connection: > > vsh1 vsh2 > ----- ----- > client --> server > server <-- client > > If we put things through a server we've got: > > vsh1 central vsh2 > server > ----- ------ ----- > client --> server > client ---> server > server <--- client > server <-- client > > I don't understand why we want to introduce this overhead. It seems > unncessary, and like a lot of extra programming to get this central > server going :) In the proposal, you can have it either way: ANYTHING CAN BE ANYWHERE :-) > That is the problem with building Makefiles by hand, you are almost > guaranteed to have to hack them on another computer. It is nice that > we will be able to try these things out on multiple computers, so > hopefully we can get rid of some of the multi-platform differences > early in the game. gms is almost nearly under the control of an > autoconf/make build now, so hopefully things will be a lot nicer soon > and everything will 'just build' in the proper gnome manner :-) Cool. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+