[Pipet Devel] Re: which handles distribution (was: vsh?)

Brad Chapman chapmanb at arches.uga.edu
Fri Mar 17 08:53:13 EST 2000

Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>>I still think there's nothing that keeps Overflow from doing 
>> 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 
> > 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 
> 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 
> API, so Overflow and GMS will continue, and users can deside which 
> 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 


More information about the Pipet-Devel mailing list