jarl van katwijk wrote: > > Chart 1 is not acceptable for security and management reasons, (Chart 1: GMS brokers Overflow-to-Overflow subnet communication) But *IF* Overflow can can be made secure and managable across the Internet, then Chart 1 is an option, right? I mean, it's just like Chart 2, except Overflow is the 'foreign app'. > chart 2 is fine, applications communication just the way > they should have done without any system wrapping them, (Chart 2: GMS/Overflow broker foreign app communication) Right. No arguments here. > chart 3 is best when the internet had unlimited capacity :) (Chart 3: No brokering; all communication goes through GMS) Remember though that all those 2-way communication lines below GMS are kept within the local host. There's still only one communication line through the Internet: between GMS instances. > I like to see 2 and a 3b possible, where 3b is Jeffs 3, > only the 'gms layer' will try to clone remote nodes to > local addres space Well, if the nodes are small enough, and the cloning process takes less time than Internet communication, then why not? > Any reason why 1 should not be thrown away? If we agree that Overflow will not communicate with anything across the Internet, then 1 can be thrown away. I just wanted to leave that option open to Jean-Marc if he wants to develop an Internet API later on. Cheers. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+