On 06/08/2010 07:25 AM, Martin Hicks wrote:
> 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
>
Ken & Martin,
I will design the changes based on this (update the protocol) and
provide you more detailed info for review.
Thank you,
Cornel
>
>> 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.
>>
|