Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >>I still think there's nothing that keeps Overflow from doing distributed >> stuff,and I think I've found a way to do it (simply by creating two new node > > types).Now the problem is that I've never used sockets before. Is anyone > > interested in helping out. This would actually serve two goals at once: See > > it we can get networking in Overflow, and have someone in Loci (or GMS) to > > get some "experience" with Overflow. Anyone interrested? Whatever we end up trying to do, I'd definately be willing to chip in. I can't promise much since I just started learning sockets myself (in python) and am still fighting to compile Overflow (and learn autoconf/make), but I'll definately be willing to give it a try. Jeff wrote: > This is a VERY important question: > > If Overflow handles application distribution and integration, > what will happen to GMS and all of its code??? This is what > GMS is designed to do. > > We CANNOT thow GMS away. Jarl simply wouldn't collaborate if we did. Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > I'm not talking about throwing GMS away... I'm just saying that we could > probably paste the GMS code into Overflow nodes and have all the GMS > functionnality into Overflow. So far, I haven't found anything that can't be > inserted into an Overflow node (GMS might prove me wrong, but I don't think). > The suggestion of writing network code was more as a proof of concept... I > don't want to rewrite all GMS. Jarl wrote: > Why not (I think it's what Jeff said before) : come to a common GUI-core > API, so Overflow and GMS will continue, and users can deside which core > fullfills their needs? I think it's important that Overflow and GMS aren't completely dependent on each other (so you could use GMS for "big" programs with distributed systems and use Overflow for "small" libraries on a local scale). However, I know for my needs that I would like to use both "small" and "big" together, and so I'd like to see Overflow and GMS interoperate, so that you don't have to choose one core over another. Would it be difficult to define a "distributed API" for GMS that Overflow could plug into (when distribution over multiple computer was necessary)? Then Overflow could define a "small library API" that GMS could plug into to run libraries? Does this make any sense? Brad