[PP-main] My thoughts

Hans Petter Jansson hpj at styx.net
Sat Mar 11 21:10:24 CET 2000

> I support using HTTP, definitely. I'm not sure how having more than one
> protocol available for use will increase complexity, given that we want to
> decouple the storage system from the protocol, which I assume.
> We want to use this as a testbed for Flux. Now, I'm sure there are no
> problems with this, given that we support HTTP as well. In the future, Flux
> is going to have some really nifty features that will probably lend
> themselves extremely well to this sort of thing (along the lines of your
> Athshe project), but at the moment, I agree totally that at least comitting
> to this single thing would be foolish. We'll toy around with it in the
> background, and jump out and make you drool when we're ready. :)

I never thought of Peer Press as a testbed for Flux, and I don't really see
how it could be. It's nice that you, Joakim, wanted to use it at some point,
but if it's going to be done as an ad-hoc "service" to me, I'd say no thanks.
Go with the solution that fits your project and your developers' tastes.

> I suppose the way it'll work with HTTP is to send HTTP POST requests to
> specify the data you want, or even use uploading to send larger chunks.
> This'll probably work. In this case, I think the correct way to implement
> would be as an Apache module, in C. The storage backend could be flat files,
> or we could possibly use Flux for it, it has some very nice, and very fast,
> embedded database functionality. But I'm not going to push Flux for that
> specific purpose, I'm sure I've done enough marketing for a while already.

Please stop "marketing" Flux in this way. If it can't market itself for the
problem you want solved, you shouldn't be using it at all.

coffeecocacolagravitywars - Hans Petter Jansson - amigadracoempirefluxstuff

More information about the Peerpress-main mailing list