[Grub-dev] Grub Architect Question...

[chris hall]

I would have to agree with bartek about client privacy, if users feel there
privacy is being invaded then they will not help out the grub project.

If it were implimented client side would be easier,  as if the server were
to periodically check every client, and some would have gone offline since
the last check, it could get messy, It would be much simpler and easier if
the clients "check in" every now and then.

-Chris

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:39 PM, bruce <bedouglas at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Thanks Bartek...
>
> Anyone else.... Feel free to chime in and give me your thoughts/opinions...
>
> As I go forth, I'll try to post some rough psuedo code/files to illustrate
> what i'm thinking of..
>
> -bruce
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bartek Jasicki [mailto:thindil2 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: bruce
> Subject: Re: Grub Architect Question...
>
>
> Dnia 2009-01-16, o godz. 11:23:02
> "bruce" <bedouglas at earthlink.net> napisał(a):
>
> > Hi Bartek...
> >
> > You have the master server, as well as the client apps...
> >
> > Under my need/situation, I'd be looking to replace/extensd all of the
> > client side stuff, as well as to modify the server side apps...
> >
> > If I understand Grub, the server side/apps have the ability to
> > respond to client requests to either upload/downlaod files to the
> > client site apps.
> >
> > I was looking for comments on my proposed architecture as to what the
> > Grub group thought of what I'm proposing/thinking about.
> >
> > I fully understand that my needs are different from the "traditional"
> > Grub. But, part of what I'm thinking about in terms of being able to
> > have multiple client apps running, and tracking the health/status of
> > the clients, which then get reported bavk to the master server, might
> > be useful to Grub. Currently Grub only allows the given client(s)
> > that the user instantiates on the cleitn to be run, and has no way of
> > managing the client(s) on the client side. The ability to run clients
> > in parallel, and to manage the process, while tracking the clients
> > might be useful/helpful... Or maybe not!!
> >
> >
> > -bruce
> >
>
> Hi
>
> Ok, so i can write only my private opinion about this ;)
> About adding tracking servers to Grub: I'm against. As i wrote some
> time ago, for me, this can break users privacy if been as a project
> server. But it can be used for single user: it can run few clients on
> remote machines and watch it from another. With this i agree and i
> think this is very helpful idea ;)
> About architecture: i think, the best way will be if clients been
> periodically send to "manager" server information about current self
> status. IMO it been faster, than when server start check every client.
> Of course there must be communication between client/server in both
> ways for example to stop/restart client from "manager" server.
>
> Anyone have other opinions/propositions about this?
>
> Bartek
>
> --
> Grub Next Generation: http://grub.org
> Mailing List: grub-dev at wikia.com
> IRC: #wikia-search at irc.freenode.net
> Jabber: thindil at jabberpl.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-dev mailing list
> Grub-dev at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/grub-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikia.com/pipermail/grub-dev/attachments/20090119/e4e1433e/attachment-0001.html