| To: | "nathans@xxxxxxxxxx" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing |
| From: | Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 2 Sep 2010 14:10:50 +1000 |
| Cc: | "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>, "pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "systemtap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <systemtap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <1219414988.590221283398911155.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1219414988.590221283398911155.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) |
nathans@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: Sure we could do it in pmproxy, but I don't see what it buys us other than not having to start one more daemon in the init script?----- "Greg Banks" <gnb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:[...] create a very simple stateless HTTP-to-PCP protocol bridge daemon [...]That echo's my thoughts, we should be able to extend pmproxy to do this too - instead of simply proxying native protocol, it could convert from XML/JSON client requests on the front end to regular PCP protocol on the backend (optionally, and only if the client requests come in that way so existing proxy protocol unchanged). Then we wouldn't need a new daemon, etc. -- Greg. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [pcp] suitability of PCP for event tracing, nathans |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |