"J.W. Bizzaro" wrote: > Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > > > Also considering remote execution, it's a nice thing to have, but it's not > > something you're going to use all the time. > > You might not need remote execution for AI/robotics, but it is critical for > computational biology. > > I think rather than some sort of homogenization of our projects, we'd be > better off distinguishing application integration and application > development. GMS/Loci can handle the first, and Overflow can handle the > second. This is item 1) from before, which you said is trivial. But > considering issues of authentication/security that Jarl brought up, issues of > Internet-awareness that I brought up, and issues of speed/performance that you > brought up, it may be an insurmountable task trying to get Overflow to do all > of this. In any case, making Overflow's core 'the' core would leave very > little left of the GMS project...and I think that's why Jarl is feeling a bit > jilted. > hehe, just a little bit :) But mostly I'm defending my idears.. Also when the Overflow project aint going to collaborate, I'll still watch them very regulairly and I surtainly will think a lot more about how to do wrapping of sub nets of overflow-type nodes inside a gms\loci node. Because it add new features without breaking the security \ locationing \ etc.