> > > 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? > Thinking the PL (overflow) hold all structures that come out the UI\DL. The BL holds a subset of this information needed for real life operation, like inet locations and encryption keys. The BL will define this information by applying static logic. > > > 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. Ic. We need some locking system. I'll think about it (too). > > > 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. > I though this DL's sharing it's nodes with another DL is something that Loci would have gotten? Also I'll think about distributed filesystem proposal, when I understand it i'll give my views on it.