Doug Tody wrote:
> I guess I agree that a simple peer-to-peer interface (basically just
Peer-to-peer built correctly, from the ground up as such, isn't necessary the 'simple' option. Although peer-to-peer based systems on the surface are much simpler, this is not intrinsically the case. In these systems emerging complexity may begin to appear allowing relatively simple pieces of software to interact to create complex and intricate behaviours which can progress the system towards desired goals.
> a socket connection with some protocol on top) is a special case.
> However a hub and a bus differ mostly in terms of efficiency, not
> semantics. The more general messaging infrastructures support all
> the options with various degrees of performance.
Well yes and no, there are other architectures beyond peer-to-peer and hub/bus systems. We might not necessarily want to look at them, but they do exist.
Al. Received on 2007-02-17Z02:06:17