Comments for page "Bus Messaging Pattern"

(no title)

Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:57:59 +0000

To give an example, the following topology: A connected to B and C, C connected to D, D connected to E, E connected to F, B connected to E. There is no direct routing between any pair that aren't connected - perhaps they aren't even on the same IP namespace (and might collide IP usage, say A and E both think they are 10.0.0.1), being two-peer LANs created with OpenVPN.

I suppose this could be created by bridging every pair with raw bus. But it would be nice if the sockets could be made to just link up like that.

Or am I misreading it, and it would already be OK to link them up like that?

(no title)

Thu, 25 Jul 2013 06:45:55 +0000

Sorry, I don't follow. How is that different from what's already implemented? Are you asking for cycle prevention to be added to the existing algo?

(no title)

Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:38:44 +0000

I think the need for a forwarding raw bus connecting each totally connected sub-bus makes this no use for a friend to friend topology (sparsely connected peers, no hub), and that's a pity.

What I wonder is, could this be extended to the more general case of a sparsely connected group, so every member still receives every message it didn't send, only once? Perhaps, each broadcast contains the ID of the sender, but also the IDs of the receivers, and a message UUID, so each recipient can forward it to its connections that aren't named (adding them to the list), and discard messages whose UUID it has seen (they looped around).

(no title)

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:34:11 +0000

User does. He decides which nodes are bound, which connect or which do both. However, after the topology is set up all the nodes act in the exactly same way.

(no title)

Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:27:49 +0000

If all nodes on a bus are homogeneous, who binds the socket?