On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat wrote: > > I'm going with just straight, unsecured socket communications and an ad hoc > > protocol. At this point, encryption is not necessary. There's nothing worth > > encrypting. To see why, look at the example protocol conversation at > > http://www.makemaker.org/wiki/?AutomatedTestDistribution > > > > Its really that simple. > > Here are a few questions and proposals: > * didn't you swap server and client in your example?
>From what I originally posted? Yes. I've ruthlessly chopped the hell out of it to get down to just what I need to get something useful off the ground. The scheme is now that users wishing to help simply run the testing client which connects to my server and waits for instructions, similar to Distributed.net. > * I plan to set up several boxes for testing (when I get one of those > round tuits ;-), but I only have one IP. It would be great if the > protocol could let the server be a front end to several smoke boxes. Since your tesing machines are clients connecting to a server it doesn't matter if they're behind NAT. Another simplification afforded by making it a straight client/server connection. > * couldn't the work be done asynchronously? No. Time from initiating tests to getting the results back would be too slow. Asynch is too complicated to manage and I'd have to parse email in order to fully automate it. Yuck. Futhermore, there's no point in complicating it. Its a little client daemon that idles in the background waiting for instructions from the server exactly like you'd run a distributed.net client. One client per server per Perl configuration. > - since you talk about a central repository of public keys This unnecessary complication has been eliminted. Individual authors looking for testing machines are on their own for the time being. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ They just don't make any good porn music anymore, do they? - WXDX DJ refering to "More, More, More"
