On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 01:44:33PM +1000, Ken McDonell wrote:
>
> Something does not "feel right" about closing sockets as a signal
> mechanism ... I would have thought that the protocol between the pmda
The reconfiguration was added after the initial creation of the PMDA, so
it may have been "tacked-on" in the easiest way possible.
I'm not really against changing the protocol, if it makes the PMDA work
better.
mh
> and the daemons could be extended to make it more synchronous on each
> socket something like ...
>
> pmda pdu daemon
> connect
> accept
> <-config_req
> ->config
> <-data update
> ->ack_ok The ack contains state change info
> ok means no change
> <-data update
> ->ack_ok
> <-data update
> ->ack_new_config pmda wants daemon to get new config info
> <-config_req
> ->config
> <-data update
> ->ack_new_config
> <-config_req
> [now if pmda holds off sending the config pdu, the daemon has effectively
> been stopped from pushing updates]
> ->config sometime later, let the daemon run again
>
> I know you did not want to muck with this protocol, but I think making
> this sort of change will give you a more robust implementation as the
> sender always knows how long to wait and the receiver does not need to
> do anything until a pdu is received.
|