jarl van katwijk wrote: > > 2) DL, Definition layer, coordination engine for scheduling UI's and > partial sharing of structure data. Logs into the BL. > 3) BL, Bropkering layer, engine for handling subnets, authentication of > DL's and parsing to the PL. Wraps application plugins. > 4) PL, Processing layer, holds the nodes, wraps (terminal?) applications > and performs nodes processing. What actually holds the 'structure data' and manages the direct manipulation of it? > Layers communications: > 1) UI<->DL communication will go by sockets For now :-) > Authentication system: > 0) Localhost has running VSH core, cq a BL\PL process. > 1) UI's spawn a new DL. > 2) DL's login to BL by their dlID and blPassword. > 2a) The 1st DL loggin into a BL becomes the root DL and has the ability > to authorize other DL's to log into the BL. (AddDL();) > 2b) All subnets created by a DL are marked by the idDL and have the same > login ability (or: idDL+blPassword) as their parent. Subnets can > therefor be relocated or mirrored inside a remote BL\PL process. > 3) DL's can login to other DL's by dlID and dlPassword. Note dlPassword > is NOT blPassword. These are 2 seperate id+password tables. I can see a problem or conflict with the filesystem proposal here. A change made to a network by a second user, during the time when the first user is working on the network (and has not saved his changes), is a Bad Thing. I proposed that the whole volume or network be locked by the first user who mounts it. This is what all multi-user OSes do to an extent (maybe files are locked rather than whole volumes). And I see it as the simplest way to prevent the problem. But it means you just can't have DL's share a network. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+